^;  J^-  Jr,'-;'ic^ 


'"^IffmMMi^'t^rl^i  ■■to    n  ,      :  i  P i '    r    ;  •  .  •■ 


iilftffiiniMlr;!^;^':H 


Mf ! 


CONGRESSIONAL  REFERENCE  BUREAU 


HEARINGS 


BEFORE  THE 


COMMITTEE  ON  THE  LIBRARY 


HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 


ON  VARIOUS  BILLS  PROPOSING  THE  ESTABLISHMENT 
OF  A  CONGRESSIONAL  REFERENCE  BUREAU 


FEBRUARY  26  and  27,  1912 


WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OPPICK 

1912 


CONGRESSIONAL  REFERENCE  "BtKEAtt. 


Committee  on  the  Library, 

House  or  Representatives, 
Washington^  D.  C,  Monday^  February  26^  1912. 

The  committee  met  at  10.30  o'clock  a.  m. 

Present:  Representatives  Slayden  (chairman),  Townsend,  Evans, 
Gardner,  and  Pickett. 

The  Chairman.  Gentlemen,  the  committee  has  met  this  morning 
to  have  what  we  call  here  in  Congress  a  hearing  on  certain  bills 
that  have  been  submitted  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  a  Con- 
gressional Reference  Bureau.  I  am  informed  that  a  somewhat  simi- 
lar institution  works  in  connection  with  the  House  of  Commons  in 
Great  Britain,  and  for  some  years  there  has  been  in  connection  with 
the  State  legislature  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin  a  similar  institution, 
and  all  reports  from  that  State,  Avith  which  we  are  much  more 
familiar  than  we  are,  of  course,  with  those  of  Great  Britain,  indicate 
that  it  is  an  institution  of  extreme  usefulness.  The  committee  has 
felt  that  it  is  a  matter  of  great  importance,  and  feels  gratified  that 
the  distinguished  gentlemen  have  come  here  from  a  distance,  and  is 
particularly  gratified  to  have  here  His  Excellency  the  Right  Hon. 
James  Bryce,  ambassador  from  Great  Britain,  who  has  consented  to 
take  some  of  his  valuable  time  to  tell  this  committee,  out  of  his 
abundant  store  of  experience  and  wisdom,  how  these  projects  work 
in  his  own  country. 

Mr.  Nelson,  who  is  the  author  of  this  bill,  will  speak  for  a  few 
minutes  to  the  committee  in  a  preliminary,  explanatory  way. 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  JOHN  M.  NELSON,  MEMBER  OF  CONGRESS 

FROM  WISCONSIN. 

Mr.  Nelson.  Mr.  Chairman,  there  is  pending  before  the  Library 
Committee  a  bill  (H.  R.  18720)  to  establish  a  Congressional  Refer- 
ence Bureau  in  the  Library  of  Congress,  to  which  I  wish  to  direct 
the  committee's  attention.  I  do  not  desire  to  speak  at  length  upon 
this  bill  at  the  present  time,  because  I  wish  to  give  way  to  these 
gentlemen  who  have  come  from  afar,  hundreds  of  miles,  and  some  of 
them  as  far  a  thousand  of  miles,  to  give  the  committee  the  benefit 
of  their  study  and  experience  along  this  line. 

I  will  just  briefly  give  an  account  of  the  origin  and  preparation  of 
this  bill.  For  10  years  or  more  it  has  been  my  good  fortune  to 
observe  its  practical  operation  in  my  own  State.  I  live  in  the 
capital  city  of  AVisconsin,  and  I  had  frequent  opportunity  to  see 
how  this  legislative  reference  bureau  supplements  the  work  of  the 
legislator  and  how  it  gives  him  exact  knowledge  of  conditions,  rela- 

3 

736507 


4  CONGRESSIONAL  BEFEEENCE   BUREAU. 

tions,  and  circumstances  in  any  given  field  of  activitj^  Avith  which 
he  has  to  deal;  how  it  enables  him  to  apply  to  those  conditions  exact 
economic,  sociological,  and  political  principles;  how  it  enables  him 
to  perfect  the  f oj-hi  of  legislation  to  fit  the  law  into  existing  laws,  to 
utilise  the  success  and  failure  of  other  States  and  countries,  gives 
him  information  as,  to  the  constitutionality,  State  and  national,  of 
the  proposed  law,  and  when  I  saw  this  operating  in  Wisconsin  and 
realized  hoAv  useful,  how  necessary,  how  exceedingly  helpful  an 
agency  it  is,  and  then,  after  six  years'  experience  in  Congress  with 
our  lack  of  these  facilities,  although  we  have  the  Library  of  Con- 
gress, with  its  millions  of  books,  periodicals,  and  magazines,  that 
might  be  made  to  focus  upon  the  great  questions  before  us,  and  real- 
izing the  wealth  of  information  in  the  departments  and  bureaus  of 
Government,  and  that  might  be  made  more  available  for  our  needs, 
1  determined  to  do  all  that  in  my  power  lies  to  see  to  it  that  their 
Legislative  Reference  Bureau  be  established  as  an  agency  of  help- 
fulness for  Congress,  to  enlarge  our  individual  and  collective 
capacity  for  legislative  service,  to  attain  a  maximum  of  legislative 
efficiency. 

I  then  went  to  the  chief  of  our  reference  bureau  of  Wisconsin  and 
asked  him  if  he  would  assist  in  the  preparation  of  a  bill  which  would 
give  us  the  benefit  of  this  helpful  agency.  In  consultation  with  Dr. 
McCarthy  and  the  secretary  of  the  commission,  Mr.  Dudgeon,  who 
is  nominally,  at  least,  the  chief  of  that  bureau,  we  prepared  a  meas- 
ure, which  I  introduced,  and  it  is  H.  R.  4703.  Senator  Owen  intro- 
duced an  amendment  to  the  Senate  along  the  same  line,  and  it  was 
then  our  efficient  Librarian  of  Congress,  seeing  that  Congress  was  in- 
terested in  this  matter,  prepared  a  very  good  report,  which  gave  a 
survey  of  the  field,  to  which  tlie  librarian  will  call  attention. 

Then  I  took  this  bill  and  sent  it  to  all  the  experts,  the  legislative 
librarians  in  the  country,  to  university  men  who  had  given  this 
legislative  agency  scientific  study,  and  to  men  who  are  familiar  with 
the  needs  of  improvement  of  substance  and  form  in  legislation,  and 
I  have  here  letters  from  them,  from  which  I  shall  briefly  read  ex- 
tracts, so  that  you  can  get  an  idea  of  how  this  strikes  the  popular 
mind. 

The  Chairman.  You  want  those  to  go  into  the  record? 

Mr.  Nelson.  I  want  them  in  the  record.    Should  I  read  them  now? 

The  Chaieman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Nelson.  T  will  just  read  one  from  especially  noted  men. 

Mr.  Pickett.  A  good  man}^  are  waiting  to  be  heard. 

Mr.  Nelson.  I  got  this  from  Gov.  Woodrow  Wilson,  of  New  Jer- 
sey.    [Reading :] 

Cov.  Woodrow  Wilson  (of  New  Jersey).:  I  was  very  glad  to  hear  from  yon, 
and  I  want  to  assure  you  that  I  entirely  approve  of  such  legislation  as  is  pro- 
posed by  bill  H.  R.  ,31356.  *  *  *  i  ean  only  say  that  it  seems  to  me  highly 
important  thnt  a  legislative  reference  department  should  be  established  In  the 
Congressional  Library.  The  experience  of  sevei-al  of  our  States  in  this  matter 
is  CI  Rcirsive  •  s  to  the  great  usefulness  of  such  a  department.  Indeed,  I  think 
if  once  established  everyone  who  had  any  knowledge  of  it  would  deem  it 
indispensable. 

T  have  letters  from  the  president  of  Harvard  University,  from  the 
president  of  the  University  of  Wisconsin,  from  former  President 
Roosevelt,  and  others  along  that  line. 


CONGRESSIONAL  REFERENCE   BUREAU.  5 

The  excerpts  from  letters  submitted  by  Mr.  Nelson  are  as  follows : 

EXTRACTS     FROM     LETTERS     FROM     RECOGNIZEO     EXPERTS. 

President  A.  Lawrence  Lowell.  Harvard  T'niversity:  *  *  *  The  plan  of 
your  bill  for  a  legislative  division  in  the  Congressionar  Library  seems  to  me 
an  excellent  one,  for  a  great  many  mistakes  may  be  saved  and  many  useful 
hints  obtained  by  knowing  what  has  been  done  under  similar  conditions  else- 
where, and  at  present  there  is  a  vast  deal  of  such  information  of  which  we  are 
really  wholly  ignorant.  It  is  not  enough  t.)  collect  it,  it  must  be  put  in  such 
form  that  one  can  use  it  without  enormous  labor.  The  legislative  bureau  in 
Wisconsin  seems  to  me  to  have  done  excellent  work  in  this  direction. 

President  Charles  R.  Van  Hlse,  University  of  Wiscon.sin :  *  *  *  j  au^  very 
glad,  however,  to  give  my  unqualified  indorsement  to  the  plan.  All  who  know 
the  situation  in  Wisconsin  before  we  had  a  legislative  reference  library  and 
since  that  time  appreciate  the  superiority  of  the  present  condition.  While  the 
ideas  of  the  members  are  strictly  carried  out,  the  bills  are  framed  in  such  form 


6  CONGKESSIONAI.  REFERENCE   BUREAU. 

reference  bureau  in  the  Library  of  Congress.  The  benefits  of  such  a  bureau  can 
hardly  be  overestimate<t.  By  means  of  it  Members  of  Congress  and  national 
officials  are  enabled  to  get  material  on  any  subject  of  legislative  interest  at  any 
time.  I  find  that  the  greatest  ditticnlty  Members  have  in  endeavoring  to  pre- 
pare a  bill  Is  to  get  the  subject  of  their  bill  so  well  in  hand  that  when  they  come 
to  explain  its  provisions  before  the  other  ]Members  their  arguments  will  carry 
any  weight.  Some  of  the  very  best  measures  have  been  lost  simply  because 
the  Member  introducing  the  bill  has  not  been  able  to  sufficiently  explain  it. 
The  legislative  reference  bureau  furnishes  the  requisite  information  to  any 
Member  who  wishes  to  ascertain  facts  and  thus  saves  him.  perhaps,  hours  of 
endless  search  for  documents  and  reports. 

Mr.  John  E.  Briudlej%  legislative  reference  librarian,  Iowa  ;  *  *  *  i  cer- 
tainly feel  that  a  legislative  reference  bui-eau  such  as  is  contemplated  by  the  pro- 
visions of  your  bill  would  prove  of  great  service  to  Congress. 

Mr.  George  L.  Clark,  legislative  reference  librarian,  Michigan :  *  *  ""■  I 
sincerely  trust  that  you  will  be  successful  in  securing  the  passage  of  your  bill, 
as  I  am  sure  that  with  the  assistance  of  a  Fetleral  department  of  this  nature 
the  state  departments  will  be  materially  aided  in  their  work.  .*i 


CONGRESSIONAL  REFERENCE   BUREAU.  7 

special  committees  call  upon  us  for  thorough  reviews  of  important  issues  under 
consideration,  but  we  feel  that  the  best  results  are  obtained  when  we  meet 
individual  members  personally. 

Finally,  the  main  item  is  that  we  are  holding  the  confidence  of  both  parties. 
The  shifting  tides  of  "  politics "  do  not  influence  us.  We  stand  on  neutral 
ground,  and  any  material  placed  at  the  disposal  of  legislators,  whether  digest, 
bill  draft,  or  recommendation,  is  uucolored  by  personal  or  partisan  opinions. 

Mr.  Charles  Belden,  State  librarian  Massachusetts:  *  *  *  j  jmye  read 
your  bill  with  care,  and  it  seems  to  me  admirable  in  every  respect.  *  *  * 
The  hearty  support  which  has  always  been  given  to  the  State  library  of  Massa- 
chusetts— really  a  legislative  reference  library — and  the  many  kind  words  that 
are  said  to  us  by  members  of  both  houses,  as  well  as  by  State  officials,  attest 
to  its  worth  and  value. 

Then,  I  took  this  bill  up  with  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  because 
this  bureau  was  to  be  established  in  the  Library,  and  he  very  kindly 
went  over  the  bill  with  great  care  with  me  so  as  to  fit  it  into  condi- 
tions there,  so  that  there  would  be  no  duplication  and  that  it  might 
work  harmoniousl}'^  with  the  Library;  and  adopting  many  of  his 
suggestions  I  introduced  another  bill. 

Then  I  took  the  bill  up  with  the  leaders  of  all  parties  in  the  House, 
so  as  to  meet  objections  and  satisfy  demands,  and  after  some  helpful 
criticism  this  bill  finally  resolved  itself  into  H.  R.  18720,  which  is  be- 
fore you  for  your  consideration,  so  far  as  I  am  concerned.  There  are 
other  bills  that  I  trust  the  committee  will  consider. 

That  is  the  history  of  the  bill  up  to  the  present  time. 

I  arranged  for  this  hearing,  with  the  courtesy  of  the  chairman,  be- 
cause I  believe  that  we  ought  to  hear  from  these  men  who  have  had 
experience  with  its  practical  operation,  and  there  are  a  number  of 
experts  from  the  bureaus — Dr.  McCarthy,  of  Wisconsin,  and  Mr. 
Brunchen,  of  Pennsylvania,  who  was  five  years  librarian  in  Cali- 
fornia, and  we  shall  have  various  heads  of  departments  who  will 
address  us.  I  now  wish  to  give  way  with  great  pleasure  to  the  British 
ambassador.  I  would  not  have  ventured  to  invite  the  British  ambas- 
sador to  speak  to  the  committee,  but  the  author  of  the  "American 
Commonwealth "  I  knew  would  not  refuse  to  show  us  this  great 
courtesy,  and  I  take  great  pleasure  in  calling  on  Ambassador  Bryce 
to  tell  us  how  Great  Britain  prepares  her  great  statutes  in  substance 
and  form,  so  that  we  may  profit  by  her  experience. 

The  Chairman.  We  shall  be  very  glad  to  hear  from  the  ambassa- 
dor at  his  convenience. 

STATEMENT   OF  THE  RIGHT  HON.  JAMES  BRYCE,  BRITISH 

AMBASSADOR. 

Mr.  Bryce.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  it  is 
perhaps  rather  unusual  for  the  representative  of  another  country  to 
appear  before  a  committee  of  either  House  of  Congress,  but  the  cir- 
cumstances are  so  exceptional  that  I  do  not  think  there  is  anything 
in  my  appearing  to  which  objection  can  be  taken.  When  I  received 
the  communications  from  you,  sir,  and  from  Mr.  Nelson,  inviting  me 
to  come  to  this  committee,  and  when  you  had  both  satisfied  me  that 
this  measure  on  this  subject  into  which  you  are  conducting  your  in- 
quiries was  one  of  entirely  nonpartisan  character,  which  did  not  raise 
any  domestic  political  issue  upon  which  parties  were  divided  in  this 
country,  when  it  was  in  fact  a  matter  deemed  to  be  of  common  con- 
cern, so  that  the  opinions  expressed  by  the  representative  of  another 


8  CONGRESSIONAL  REFERENCE   BUREAU. 

country  could  not  be  thought  to  have  any  political  tendency  or  bear- 
ing, I  saw  no  reason  why  1  should  not  comply  with  the  request. 

I  feel  it  to  be  an  honor  and  a  compliment  to  be  invited,  and  my 
desire  will  be  to  give  you  such  information  regarding  our  system  in 
Great  Britain  as  may  be  serviceable  to  you.  Mr.  Nelson  in  the  few 
observations  he  has  just  made  has  indicated  what  is  the  gist  of  the 
matter,  viz,  that  anything  I  may  say  is  not  said  by  the  British  am- 
bassador, but  is  said  by  one  who  has  for  many  years  endeavored  to 
study  the  political  conditions  of  this  country  and  especially  those 
political  conditions  which  lie  outside  of  party  politics,  and  who  is 
therefore  to  state  what  is  our  system  in  England  and  endeavor  to  put 
our  English  experience  at  your  service. 

I  ought,  perhaps,  to  begin,  Mr.  Chairman,  by  indicating  what  are 
the  fundamental  differences  between  your  system  and  that  of  Great 
Britain  that  make  the  conditions  under  which  British  legislation 
proceeds  unlike  yours.  AVhat  I  shall  say  about  our  system  must  be 
taken  subject  to  the  fact  that  these  conditions  are  entirely  different 
in  your  country  and  in  mine,  so  that  our  system  could  not  be  ap- 
plied directly  in  any  country  whose  principles  of  government  are 
dissimilar  so  far  as  regards  legislative  methods.  The  most  impor- 
tant difference  is  this :  In  Britain  there  is  not  that  formal  separa- 
tion of  the  legislative  from  the  executive  departments  which  exists 
in  the  United  States.  With  us  the  executive  of  the  country — that  is 
to  say,  the  cabinet,  the  ministers  of  the  Crown,  who  conduct  the  execu- 
tive departments  and  administer  the  business  of  the  country — sit  in 
Parliament,  most  of  them  in  the  House  of  Commons,  some  of  them 
in  the  House  of  Lords,  and  they  are  responsible  for  the  conduct 
of  business  in  both  houses. 

The  great  bulk  of  legislation,  including  all  the  more  important 
bills,  are  introduced  by  the  executive  government.  It  is  they  that 
prepare  the  bills;  it  is  they  that  dispose  of  the  time  of  Parliament 
for  the  purpose  of  passing  the  bills ;  it  is  they  that  conduct  the  bills 
through  the  Houses  of  Parliament,  and  therefore  the  drafting  of 
legislation  is  primarily  a  business  for  the  executive.  Nevertheless, 
the  power  of  private  members,  members  who  do  not  belong  to  the 
administration,  to  introduce  bills  remains  quite  unlimited  both  in  the 
House  of  Commons  and  in  the  House  of  Lords.  That  is  an  ancient 
principle  of  our  constitution,  and  every  member  of  the  House  of 
Commons  and  every  member  of  the  House  of  Lords  is  entitled  to 
present  bills,  but  the  rules  which  determine  the  procedure  of  the 
House  of  Commons  have  latterly  assigned  the  largest  part  of  the 
time  of  Parliament  to  Government  bills.  Thus  it  is  only  "  Govern- 
ment bills "  that  have  any  great  political  importance ;  and  four- 
fifths  of  all  the  bills  that  are  passed,  nineteen-twentieths  of  those  that 
are  of  high  significance,  are  passed  at  the  instance  of  the  executive 
government. 

There  is  {mother  difference  to  which  I  nuist  advert  to  in  passing, 
and  that  is  the  distinction  that  Ave  draw  between  public  bills  and 
private  bills.  The  term  ''private  bills"  means  local  or  personal 
bills,  bills  which  relate  to  a  particularly  locality  or  bills  which  affect 
a  particular  person  or  group  of  persons.  These  private  bills  are 
dealt  with  under  our  sj^stem  in  an  entirely  different  Avay  from  that 
in  which  public  bills  are  dealt  with.  They  are  dealt  Avitli  by  Avhat 
may  be  called  a  kind  of  judicial  procedure — that  is  to  say,  they  are 


CONGRESSIONAL   REFERENCE  BUREAU.  9 

introduced  by  private  persons  or  local  authorities,  and  they  are  not 
conducted  by  our  ordinary  methods  by  which  we  put  public  bills 
through  the  two  Houses  of  Parliament. 

What  I  have  to  say  to  you.  therefore,  refers  entirely  to  the  public 
bills,  not  to  private.  This  system  of  dealing  w'ith  private  bills  is 
in  our  country  a  valuable  and  practically  useful  system,  and  if  that 
were  the  question  before  your  committee,  I  should  be  very  happy  to 
give  you  an  account  of  it,  and  to  explain  how  it  is  that  we,  as  we 
believe,  succeed  in  avoiding  difficulties  and  dangers  and  the  risks 
of  improper  action  Avhich  may  attach  to  the  passing  of  private  bills, 
by  subjecting  our  private  bills  to  a  species  of  judicial  procedure.  They 
are  sent  to  committees  whose  members  make  a  solemn  declaration 
that  they  will  not  be  affected  by  any  private  interest  in  dealing  Avith 
the  bills.  They  are  heard  very  much  as  a  lawsuit  is  heard  by  counsel 
who  present  the  cas6  and  who  exauune  witnesses,  and  no  member  of 
either  House  of  Parliament  is  ])ermitted  to  interfere  in  any  way 
Avith  the  conduct  of  these  committees  in  dealing  Avith  private  bills. 
It  Avould  be  a  breach  of  our  set  rules  for  any  private  member,  no 
matter  hoAv  greatly  interested  his  constituents  might  be  in  the  bill, 
to  endeavor  to  influence  the  consideration  of  a  committee  on  that 
bill.  Each  committee  is  bound  to  deal  Avith  it  fairly  on  the  basis 
of  the  evidence  submitted  and  Avith  a  aIcav  to  the  general  public 
interest. 

I  may  say  I  have  dealt  Avith  that  subject  in  an  address  I  delivered 
three  years  ago  to  the  Xcav  York  State  Bar  Association.  If  any  mem- 
ber of  the  committee  Avould  care  to  have  a  copy  of  that  address  I 
shall  be  glad  to  send  a  copy  to  him,  but  as  it  is  not  the  subject  di- 
rectly before  you,  I  haAe  merely  indicated  that  the  remarks  I  am 
going  to  make  relate  exclusively  to  public  bills — that  is  to  say,  to 
these  Avhich  are  of  general  application  and  aifect  the  general  interest 
of  the  country. 

I  need  not  go  further  back  into  the  history  of  the  matter  than  to 
about  the  middle  of  the  last  century.  In  18'')7,  for  the  first  time,  an 
official,  being  a  barrister  of  experience,  Avas  appointed  to  draft  bills 
for  the  administration.  Before  that  time  each  department  had 
either  prepared  its  OAvn  bills  in  its  OAvn  way  or  had  employed  .some 
lawyer  to  draft  them  for  it.  Ultimately,  in  the  years  1869  and  1871, 
there  was  organized  a  permanent  office  wdiich  Avas  charged  Avith  the 
preparation  of  all  Government  bills.  Our  practice  in  England,  Avhen 
we  have  no  particular  department  under  Avhich  to  place  any  branch 
of  work,  is  to  put  it  under  the  treasury.  The  treasury  is  a  sort  of 
general  legatee  of  business  that  does  not  belong  to  any  special  de- 
partment, for  the  good  and  obvious  reason  that  the  treasury  is 
the  paymaster  and  has  to  provide  for  the  payment  of  all  Avork  done 
which  does  not  belong  to  any  special  department. 

This  bill-drafting  official  Avas  called  at  one  time  the  '*  counsel  of 
Parliament  or  counsel  to  the  treasury."  It  is  noAv  generally  spoken 
of  as  the  office  of  the  parliamentary  counsel.  It  consists  of  one 
head — an  experienced  laAA^ver  and  practiced  draftsman — Avho  receives 
a  large  salary.  A  large  salary  is  necessary  in  order  to  secure  the 
highest  legal  talent.  I  am  not  quite  sure  Avhat  the  salary  is,  but  my 
impression  is  that  it  used  to  be  £2.000  a  year — about  $10.000 — for  the 
head  of  the  office,  and  is  now  a  little  more — $1-2,500  for  the  head  and 
$10,000  for  the  assistant  counsel.    ^Smaller  salaries  Avould  not  be  suffi- 


10  CONGRESSIONAL  BEFERENCE   BUREAU. 

cieiit  to  secure  that  tirst-rate  legal  talent  which  it  is  necessary  to 
have.  This  office  accordingly  consists  of  a  head  counsel  and  the  as- 
sist counsel,  both  barristers  of  talent  and  experience,  thoroughly 
trained  in  law  and  draftsmanship,  and  their  business  is  to  prepare 
and  put  into  form  every  bill  which  is  to  be  introduced  into  Parlia- 
ment by  any  department  of  the  administration.  They  employ  other 
assistants,  whose  payment  is  fixed  by  them  under  the  supervision  of 
the  treasury,  for  any  work  which  may  be  impossible  for  them  in  time 
of  pressure  to  undertake  personally.  The  process  which  a  bill  under- 
goes before  being  presented  to  Parliament  is  as  follows:  I  had  some 
experience  in  the  matter,  because  I  have  been  in  three  or  four  differ- 
ent departments  of  Government  while  I  was  in  the  House  of  Com- 
mons, and  in  three  of  these  departments  I  was  the  head  of  the  de- 
partment, and  was  therefore  responsible  for  the  legislation  that  was 
introduced;  and  one  of  those  departments,  the  board  of  trade,  which 
is  wdiat  you  call  the  ministry  of  commerce  and  labor,  Avith  some  of 
the  functions  of  your  ministry  of  the  interior,  had  a  great  deal  of 
legislation,  and  its  function  was  not  only  to  prepare  legislation  but 
to  watch  the  legislation  that  was  introduced  by  private  members. 

When  a  bill  is  to  be  prepared,  the  first  thing  that  the  minister  in 
charge  of  the  department  does  is  to  hold  a  sort  of  council  of  war  of 
his  own  department,  and  to  consider  what  are  to  be  the  contents  of 
the  bill  he  desires  to  introduce.  When  he  is  satisfied  as  regards  the 
substance  of  the  provisions  contemplated  he  sends  for  the  parlia- 
mentary counsel,  who  thereupon  comes  over  to  the  department,  dis- 
cusses the  matter  with  the  minister  and  the  heads  of  his  subdepart- 
ments  and  takes  the  instructions  upon  which  he  is  to  frame  the  bill. 
If  he  finds  that  there  are  any  technical  legal  difficulties  connected 
with  the  carrying  out  of  w^hat  the  minister  wants,  it  is  his  duty  to 
represent  those  clifficult-ies.  Suppose  the  minister  says,  "  I  want  to 
have  a  bill  introduced  with  provisions  for  doing  so  and  so."  The 
business  of  the  parliamentary  counsel  is  to  say,  "  How  will  you  recon- 
cile those  provisions  with  those  that  exist  in  such  and  such  an  act  ?  Do 
you  want  to  repeal  that  act  or  to  modify  it?  Hoav  will  you  reconcile 
your  scheme  with  the  doctrine  laid  down  in  such  and  such  a  decided 
case?  Do  you  or  do  j^'ou  not  mean  to  alter  the  law  as  declared  in  that 
case  ?  "  Or  he  may  say,  ''  The  plan  you  propose  will  be  exposed  to 
such  and  such  practical  difficulties  in  its  working.  How  do  you 
propose  to  avoid  those  difficulties?"  Such  criticisms  are  valuable, 
because  there  may  be  objections  to  the  minister's  plans  which  will 
not  have  occurred  to  his  mind  or  to  the  minds  of  the  members  of 
his  department.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  parliamentary  counsel  to  pre- 
sent these  things  to  the  minister  and  to  give  him  a  complete  view  of 
the  way  in  Avhich  his  bill,  if  it  is  introduced,  will  affect  the  existing 
law,  so  as  to  be  sure  it  will  not  do  more  than  was  intended,  and  above 
all  that  it  will  not  leave  untouched  various  contingencies  or  legal 
provisions  of  existing  statutes  which  ought  to  be  dealt  with  to  make 
the  bill,  when  enacted,  Avork  in  a  satisfactory  Avay. 

I  hope  the  members  of  the  committee  will  folloAV  Avhat  I  am  en- 
deavoring to  state,  because  this  is  one  of  the  most  important  parts  of 
the  functions  of  a  draftsman — preparing  a  bill — and  the  most  helpful 
to  the  minister. 

W^hen  this  discussion  is  over  the  parliamentary  counsel  takes  aAvay 
his  instructions  and  he  prepares  a  draft  of  the  bill  and  sends  it  to 


CONGRESSIONAL  REFERENCE   BUREAU.  11 

the  department.  The  department  considers  the  draft  bill,  makes  some 
sug-gestions  upon  it  for  the  consideration  of  the  parliamentary  coun- 
sel, and  probably  requests  the  parliamentary  counsel  to  come  over 
for  another  conference  on  the  subject.  If  the  bill  is  a  bill  of  first-rate 
importance,  it  is  laid  before  the  cabinet,  and  sometimes  it  is  dis- 
cussed before  the  cabinet  at  great  length.  I  remember  a  case  where 
the  cabinet  spent  six  or  seven  successive  sittings  in  discussing  the 
provisions  of  one  particular  bill,  and  sometimes,  although  very  rarely, 
it  will  happen  that  the  draftsman  of  the  bill,  the  parliamentary  coun- 
sel himself,  is  asked  to  come  in  and  meet  a  committee  of  the  cabinet 
to  discuss  the  provisions  of  the  bill.  I  remember  one  famous  case 
in  which  a  bill  was  redrafted  22  times  and  printed  and  circulated  to 
the  members  of  the  cabinet  22  times,  with  the  different  changes 
which  had  been  made  in  it  by  the  parliamentary  counsel,  in  order 
to  obey  the  directions  of  the  cabinet. 

When  the  minister  is  ultimately  satisfied  with  the  draft  which  the 
parliamentary  counsel  has  presented,  and  when  the  parliamentary 
counsel  has  said  all  he  has  to  sa3^  then  the  bill,  having  been  approved 
by  the  minister,  will  be  brought  by  him  into  the  House  of  Commons 
or  the  House  of  Lords — usually  into  the  House  of  Commons. 

You  will  see  from  that  how  important  a  function  the  parliamen- 
tary counsel  performs.  He  is  in  no  way  responsible  for  the  policy 
of  a  bill.  That  is  entirely  a  matter  for  the  department  or  for  the 
cabinet.  His  function  is  merely  to  carry  out  their  wishes,  but  he 
has  opportunities  of  the  greatest  possible  value  for  representing  to 
them  the  difficulties  which  may  arise  in  carrying  out  any  scheme 
which  they  propose  to  enact  by  a  bill.  If  the  bill  proposes  to  create 
new  administrative  machinery,  it  would  be  his  duty  to  point  out  any 
difficulties  in  the  working  of  that  machinery,  and  although  the  par- 
liamentary counsel  is  entirely  outside  politics  and  is  not  entitled  to 
belong  to  a  political  party  or  to  express  any  political  opinion  of  his 
own,  and  is,  of  course,  forbidden  to  belong  to  a  party  organization, 
still  he  is  an  important  functionary,  through  his  duty  of  calling 
the  attention  of  the  minister  or  the  cabinet  to  all  questions  whatever, 
whether  they  involve  political  considerations  or  not,  which  the  Ijill 
may  raise. 

When  the  bill  has  been  brought  in,  it  goes  through  its  usual  stages 
in  both  houses.  It  is  read  a  first  time ;  it  is  read  a  second  time ;  it  is 
then,  in  the  House  of  Commons,  referred  to  one  of  the  large  com- 
mittees (Avhat  are  called  the  "  Grand  committees  ")  or  it  is  referred  to 
the  committee  of  the  Avhole.  If  it  is  a  bill  of  first-class  importance,  it 
goes  to  the  committee  of  the  whole.  When  it  is  in  committee, 
amendments  are  constantly  moved  by  private  members,  whicli  will 
affect  the  substance  and  the  form  of  the  bill,  and  of  course  the 
minister  in  charge  of  the  bill  is  sometimes  not  enougli  of  a  lawyer  to 
be  able,  offhand,  to  deal  with  the  legal  aspect  of  those  amendments, 
so  we  have  made  an  arrangement,  of  late  years,  under  which  the 
parliamentarj^  counsel  is  assigned  a  seat  inside  the  room — the  room 
in  which  the  House  of  Commons  sits,  though  technically  outside 
the  House — and  where  he  can  be  easily  got  at  by  the  minister. 
So  when  an  amendment  is  moved  about  the  effect  of  Avhich  the 
minister  is  not  quite  clear  or  whose  wording  he  does  not  quite  imder- 
stand,  he  can  leave  his  seat  in  the  House  and  go  around  a  few  steps 
to  confer  with  the  parliamentary  counsel  and  take  his  opinion  about 


12  CONGRESSIONAL  REFERENCE   BUREAU. 

it.  Tliat  is  R  real  convenience.  Often,  when  an  amendment  has  been 
suddenly  moved,  vrhich  I  found  it  not  very  easy  to  deal  with  on  the 
spur  of  the  moment,  I  have  gone  to  the  parliamentary  counsel  "  under 
the  gallery  "  and  consulted  him  about  it  and  whether  he  thought  we 
could  accept  it  Avithout  harming  the  rest  of  the  bill  and,  if  not, 
whether  he  could  suggest  any  change  in  the  Avording  that  would 
make  it  possible  for  us  to  accept  it. 

Mr.  ToAVNSEND.  Mr.  Ambassador,  during  that  time  what  is  the 
legislative  status  of  a  bill  to  which  an  amendment  has  been  offered — 
is  debate  going  on  ? 

Mr.  Bryce.  Debate  is  going  on;  and,  of  course,  one  can.  if  neces- 
sary, put  up  some  member  on  one's  own  side,  wdio  Avill  get  up  and 
talk  for  a  fcAv  minutes  while  one  is  conferring  with  the  parliamentary 
counsel  and  in  that  way  the  thing  is  always  kept  going.     [Laughter.] 

It  is  an  interesting  symptom  when  a  minister  is  seen  going  to  talk 
to  his  parliamentary  counsel :  people  knoAv  that  he  thinks  the  amend- 
ment of  some  consequence. 

Mr.  Pickett.  Does  he  announce  he  is  going  to  consult  with  the 
parliamentary  counsel  ? 

Mr.  Bryce.  No;  it  would  be  irregular  to  do  that,  because  the 
counsel  is  not  supposed  to  be  present.  Neither  is  it  necessary,  be- 
cause if  the  minister  is  seen  leaving  his  seat  to  talk  to  the  parliamen- 
tary counsel,  everybody  understands  the  reason,  and  as  the  practice 
is  for  the  general  convenience  of  all  parties,  nobody  objects. 

Mr.  Pickett.  I  was  just  getting  at  the  status. 

Mr.  Bryce.  In  this  way  the  bill  goes  through  the  House  of  Com- 
mons. When  it  has  been  through  committee,  it,  of  course,  comes  up 
in  the  stage  of  report.  It  is  reported  to  the  Avhole  house,  which  con- 
siders it  again,  usually  making  further  amendments  in  it.  Then  it 
comes  on  for  third  reading  and  then  it  goes  to  the  other  house. 

The  only  other  point  I  need  mention  upon  this  subject,  is  to  emphasize 
the  need  which  Ave  feel  to  exist  for  the  most  careful  consideration  for 
the  Avording  of  the  bill  from  the  point  of  A'ieAv  of  the  laAvyer.  The 
minister,  of  course,  is  responsible  for  the  substance,  but  we  feel — in 
order  to  make  our  legislation  finished  and  proper  and  effectiA^e  and 
to  prcA'ent  difficulties  from  subsequently  arising — the  form  of  the 
bill  can  not  be  considered  too  carefully,  and  that  object  Ave  believe 
to  be  attained  by  the  employment  of  the  highest  legal  talent  in  the 
work  of  drafting. 

If  there  are  any  points  Avhich  I  have  not  succeeded  in  making 
clear,  perhaps  some  member  Avill  ask  me  a  question. 

The  Chairman.  The  purpose  of  that  great  care  in  the  committee 
stage  in  the  prej^aration  of  the  form  of  the  bill  is,  of  course,  to  avoid 
litigation  subsequently,  I  suppose? 

Mr.  Bryce.  That  is  so.  Now  let  me  attempt  to  sum  up  briefly  the 
advantages  Avhich  Ave  in  Britain  belicA'e  to  have  resulted  to  the  con- 
duct of  legislation  and  the  improA^ement  of  our  statute  laAv  from  the 
institution  of  the  office  of  parliamentary  counsel.  They  are  as 
follows : 

In  the  first  place,  it  has  secured  much  greater  economy,  because, 
until  this  one  office  Avas  created  for  the  purpose  of  doing  the  Avork  of 
drafting,  we  had  been  obliged  to  pay  much  larger  sums  to  the  lawyers 
than  those  which  are  noAv  required  for  the  payment  of  the  permanent 
officials. 


CONGRESSIONAL  REFERENCE  BUREAU.  13 

Secondl}',  a  harmony  in  legislation  has  been  secured,  which  did  not 
previously  exist.  As  all  Government  bills  go  through  the  same  office, 
there  is  a  far  less  chance  that  measures  inconsistent  either  in  policy 
or  in  matters  of  administrative  machinery  or  as  respects  legal  form 
and  expression  will  be  introduced  or  passed. 

Thirdly,  the  legal  form  in  which  bills  pass  into  acts  is  a  great  deal 
better  than  it  used  to  be  under  the  old  system.  Since  1870  the  form 
of  our  statutes  has  been  far  superior  to  what  it  was  in  earlier  years, 
and  especially  to  what  it  was  before  1850.  The  acts  of  Parliament 
are  shorter,  they  are  clearer,  they  are  better  expressed,  and  less  liti- 
gation arises  upon  them.  This  is  very  largely  due  to  the  fact  that 
they  are  now  prepared  on  uniform  principles ;  that  certain  forms  of 
expression  have  been  carefully  considered  and  settled  and  are  ad- 
hered to,  and  that  all  the  work  is  done  by  persons  carefully  trained 
and  possessed  not  only  of  skill,  but  of  long  practical  experience.  I 
may  add  that  the  office  of  parliamentary  counsel  has  been  turned  to 
account  for  three  other  purposes  also.  One  of  these  is  to  give  advice 
to  the  Government  upon  questions  arising  upon  the  construction  of 
statutes  which  are  not  sufficiently  important  to  be  referred  to  the  at- 
torney and  solicitor  general,  who  are  the  regular  law  officers  of  the 
Crown,  and  who  are  so  much  occupied  with  other  work  that  they  are 
often  unable  to  find  time  to  advise  upon  minor  questions,  relating 
especially  to  administration,  which  arise  upon  statutes.  It  is  fre- 
quently found — and  this  has  been  within  my  own  experience — very 
helpful  to  consult  parliamentary  counsel  upon  some  question  which 
arises  in  the  course  of  the  administration  of  a  department  as  to  the 
precise  meaning  and  effect  of  a  statutory  provision  which  the  depart- 
ment is  obliged  to  use. 

Fourthly,  the  office  of  parliamentary  counsel  has  been  found  very 
useful  in  the  work  of  consolidating  statutes.  We  have  been  engaged 
in  England  for  a  good  many  years  in  clearing  off  the  statute  books 
obsolete  or  practically  superseded  statutes  which  have  not  been  ex- 
pressly repealed,  and  in  publishing  revised  editions  of  the  statutes. 
We  have  also  been  employed  in  consolidating  a  large  number  of 
statutes  which  deal  with  the  same  subject,  and  the  superabundance  of 
which,  as  well  as  the  occasional  discrepancies  between  the  provisions 
of  which,  had  given  trouble  in  practice.  For  the  purpose  of  dealing 
with  this  work  of  statute  consolidation  there  was  appointed  a  good 
many  years  ago  a  body  called  "  the  statute  law  ccnimittee,""  con- 
sisting of  a  few  members  of  Parliament  possessing  legal  laiowledge, 
and  of  a  few  high  officials,  such  as  the  lord  chancellor  and  the 
attorney  or  solicitor  general.  The  chief  parliamentary  counsel  has 
always  been  a  member  of  this  committee  and  it  has  managed  the 
work  of  consolidation  under  his  direction.  It  is  seldom  possible 
for  him  to  give  time  from  his  other  work  to  prepare  consolidation 
acts,  but  he  has  been  able  to  chose  competent  draftsmen  from  n:em- 
bers  of  the  bar  to  do  this  work  and  he  or  his  assistants  have  revised 
it,  thus  securing  an  efficiency  perhaps  otherwise  unattainable.  As  I 
was  a  member  of  this  statute  law  committee  for  a  number  of  v^ears, 
both  when  in  office  and  cut  of  office,  I  had  many  opportunities  of 
seeing  how  valuable  to  its  work  was  the  presence  on  it  of  the  head 
of  the  parliamentary  drafting  cffice.  He  was  a  permanent  eleuient 
who  became  thoroughly  conversant  with  all  it  had  to  do,  and  Avas 


14  CONGRESSIONAL   EEPERENCE   BUREAU. 

able  to  keep  the  Avork  of  revision  under  his  oversight,  and  he  knew 
how  to  choose  the  best  men  to  carry  it  out. 

Fifthl}^,  sometimes  the  cabinet  and  sometimes  a  department  found 
it  necessary  either  in  considering  changes  in  the  law  which  they 
desired  to  effect  by  legislation,  or  for  the  purpose  of  controlling  the 
work  of  the  administration  by  their  subordinate  officials,  to  have 
prepared  for  them  a  succinct  and  clear  statement  of  the  laws  affecting 
a  certain  branch  of  administration.  Such  statements  were  from  time 
to  time  drawn  up  at  the  request  of  a  department  by  the  office  of  the 
parliamentary  counsel  and  were  found  of  great  service  to  the  de- 
partment. 

Sixthly,  the  ministers  sitting  in  Parliament  often  find  themselves 
obliged  to  form  an  opinion  upon  bills  introduced  by  private  members, 
and  though  thej^  could  sometimes  do  so  from  their  own  knowledge 
and  sometimes  could  obtain  information  from  their  own  subordi- 
nates, it  was  often  convenient  to  consult  the  parliamentary  counsel 
regarding  some  pending  bill  and  have  his  opinion  as  to  how  far  it 
was  compatible  with  the  existing  law  or  whether  the  changes  that 
it  proposed  to  introduce  would  destroy  the  symmetry  and  harmony 
of  the  law.  The  parliamentary  counsel  being  a  repertory  of  in- 
formation upon  the  subject  was  thus  sometimes  consulted  regarding 
private  members'  bills  and  his  advice  was  always  found  useful. 

Seventhly,  we  have  in  England  a  great  deal  of  what  may  be  called 
subordinate  or  secondary  legislation — that  is  to  say,  we  pass  statutes 
which  empowered  either  the  Sovereign  by  what  is  called  an  "  Order 
in  council "  or  the  council  of  the  judges  or  some  high  official  at  the 
head  of  a  department  to  make  ordinances  or  regulations  upon  some 
special  topic.  These  have  the  force  of  an  act  of  Parliament,  because 
they  are  made  in  pursuance  of  the  powers  an  act  of  Parliament  con- 
fers. This  subordinate  legislation  is  usually  directed  to  be  laid  upon 
the  table  of  both  Houses  of  Parliament  for  approval,  and  if  it  is 
not  disapproved  it  takes  effect  and  becomes  law.  Although  these 
orders  in  council  and  statutory  rules  are  usually  prepared  by  the 
department  to  which  they  belong,  the  more  important  of  them  are 
sometimes  referred  to  the  office  of  the  parliamentary  counsel  for 
his  opinion,  or  to  be  drafted  by  him,  and  he  is  always  at  hand  in 
case  any  legal  difficulty  arise. 

Although  I  have  set  forth  these  different  kinds  of  work  which 
the  office  does,  for  the  sake  of  giving  you  a  tolerably  complete 
account  of  its  functions  and  place  in  our  system,  I  am  well  aware 
that  many  of  these  would  not  be  applicable  to  such  a  system  as 
j^ours,  where  the  ministers  of  the  President  do  not  sit  in  Congress 
and  bills  are  prepared  and  passed  by  individual  Members  of  Con- 
gress, and  are  passed  by  it  and  its  committees  without  any  inter- 
vention by  the  administration.  It  is,  of  course,  for  you  gentlemen 
to  consider  how  far  any  such  advantages  could  be  secured  for  Con- 
gress or  for  the  department  by  any  legislative  bureau  or  drafting 
office  which  might,  at  any  rate,  have  some  of  the  functions  that  the 
British  office  has  profitably  discharged  in  our  country. 

I  need  hardly  say  that  our  office  is  a  branch  of  the  permanent 
civil  service,  and  none  of  its  members  go  in  and  out  with  the  gov- 
ernment. They  are  permanent  officials  who  are  entirely  excluded 
from  party  politics,  and  any  participation  by  them  in  party  politics 
would  lead  to  their  immediate  dismissal.    It  is  one  of  the  best  tradi- 


CONGRESSIONAL  REFERENCE   BUREAU.  15 

tions  of  the  permanent  public  service  in  England  that  its  members 
serve  every  government  with  equal  loyalty  and  zeal,  and  although 
they  know  to  a  large  extent  what  may  be  called  the  political  secrets 
of  an  administration  they  never  betray  these  nor  in  any  way  suffer 
whatever  private  opinions  they  may  entertain  to  interfere  with 
their  sense  of  duty  to  the  executive  government. 

If  I  may,  I  will  venture  to  say  a  word  or  two  on  two  other  topics 
besides  the  parliamentary  counsel's  office  because  I  understand  both 
are  included  in  the  scope  of  this  bill  now  before  the  committee.  The 
one  is  as  to  the  bureau  of  legislation  which  is  proposed  in  the  bill. 
If  I  may  be  presumed  to  offer  an  opinion  I  would  say  that  this 
appears  to  me  a  proposal  of  the  highest  value.  The  age  in  which 
we  live,  gentlemen,  is  an  age  in  which  more  and  more  is  demanded 
of  legislation.  The  people  of  this  country  and  the  people  of  every 
free  country  are  expecting  much  more  from  legislation  than  they 
did  formerly.  They  are  asking  the  Government,  both  the  Central 
Government  and  their  local  governments,  to  undertake  many  func- 
tions which  were  not  attempted  before,  and  the  complex  nature  of 
our  civilization  makes  the  discharge  of  these  functions  more  difficult 
than  ever  it  was  before.  There  is  more  intricacy  and  more  detail  in 
statutes,  and  the  economical  and  social  problems  with  which  legis- 
lation now  endeavors  to  deal  become  more  difficult.  There  are  raised 
more  questions  of  economic  and  legal  principle  upon  which  it  is 
difficult  to  form  a  sound  opinion  than  happened  in  a  previous  age 
of  the  world.  It  appears,  therefore,  to  be  more  than  ever  necessary 
to  endeavor  to  accumulate  all  data  that  can  possibly  help  us  in  the 
framing  of  good  legislation.  The  most  important  and  obviously 
necessary  of  those  data  are  such  as  ai'e  furnished  by  the  experience  of 
the  country  itself.  It  is  necessary  to  know  what  are  the  evils  that 
exist,  to  consider  and  weigh  different  remedies  that  are  proposed  for 
those  evils,  and  to  consider  how  far  legislation  can  deal  with  them. 

You  have  here  an  unequaled  opportunity  of  doing  that,  because  you 
have  48  States  beside  the  District  of  Columbia,  and  you  have  49 
legislative  bodies  at  work  annually  turning  out  many  thousands  of 
statutes.  You  have,  therefore,  a  far  larger  amount  of  material  for 
considering  the  operation  of  legislative  proposals  than  we  have  in  any 
European  country,  but  at  the  same  time  the  value  of  foreign  ex- 
perience is  also  very  great.  These  problems  which  engage  our  atten- 
tion and  which  engage  your  attention  are  problems  which  have  come 
up  in  European  countries  also  and  in  the  self-governing  colonies  of 
Great  Britain  in  various  parts  of  the  world.  The  legislation  that  is 
passed  in  Canada,  Australia,  and  New  Zealand  deals  with  problems 
very  much  the  same  as  yours,  and  the  same  is  true  of  the  legislation 
passed  in  Germany,  France,  and  other  countries  throughout  conti- 
nental Europe.  A  bureau,  which  could  collect  all  the  information 
from  your  own  States  and  from  the  other  English-speaking  countries 
of  the  world  and  from  the  great  countries  of  continental  Europe, 
could  not  fail  to  be  of  great  value  to  all  those  who  desire  to  introduce 
legislative  measures  here.  One  can  hardly  overestimate  the  value  of 
knowing  not  only  what  has  been  done  in  other  countries,  but  also  of 
knoAving  how  the  experiments  other  countries  have  tried  are  working 
out.  As  observed  by  Mr.  Nelson,  such  a  bureau  as  is  now  contem- 
plated has  been  established  in  several  States.  I  had  the  opportunity 
some  years  ago  of  examining  its  working  in  Wisconsin,  and  the  testi- 


16  CONGRESSIONAL  BEFEKENCE   BUREAU. 

inony  of  persons  whom  I  saw  in  Wisconsin  appeared  to  be  unani- 
mously favorable,  and  I  believe  a  bureau  of  the  same  kind  exists  in 
New  York— it  has  frequently  supplied  the  einbassy  Avith  valuable 
information— and  also  in  the  State  of  Pennsylvania. 

There  is  one  particular  branch  of  information  on  which  I  wish  to 
say  a  word,  and  that  is  the  changes  that  are  being  made  in  the  laws 
and  constitutions  of  States  by  the  direct  action  of  the  people  as  voters 
on  questions  submitted  to  them.  The  method  of  direct  popular  legis- 
lation has  noAv  become  very  frequent  in  many  of  your  States.  It  be- 
gan, as  you  all  know,  of  course,  w^ith  the  amendment  of  constitutions 
by  direct  popular  vote.  It  then  went  on  into  the  form  of  permitting 
statutes  passed  bj'^  the  legislatures  to  be  referred  to  popular  vote  for 
approval  or  disapproval,  and  it  has  further  developed  into  the  form 
of  allowing  in  some  States  a  certain  number  of  citizens  to  propose 
laws  which  are  to  be  passed,  not  by  the  legislatures,  but  by  the  direct 
vote  of  the  people.  I  can  assure  you — perhaps  you  know  this  your- 
selves— that  there  is  much  difficulty  in  ascertaining  what  enactments 
are  being  passed  in  the  different  States  by  this  method.  I  have  had 
occasion  in  endeavoring  fi'om  time  to  time  to  revise  the  book  to  which 
Mr.  Nelson  referred  to  try  to  make  out  what  amendments  to  the  State 
constitutions  had  been  passed  in  the  several  States — what  votes  had 
been  taken  upon  the  referendum  and  what  votes  had  been  taken  upon 
the  initiative,  and  at  the  present  time  there  seems  to  be  no  means  of 
ascertaining  the  facts  on  this  subject,  except  by  Avriting  to  the  gov- 
ernors or  the  secretaries  of  the  several  States  and  putting  them  to  the 
trouble  of  sending  information  to  a  private  person.  Surely  it  is  a 
matter  of  great  concern  to  all  of  you  here  in  Congress,  in  this  central 
heart  of  the  Nation,  to  be  able  to  obtain  full  information  with  regard 
to  all  that  is  passing  in  the  several  States.  Might  it  not  be  a  proper 
exercise  of  the  powers  of  Congress  to  create  a  bureau  or  department 
here  which  should  keep  record  of  all  that  is  being  done  by  direct 
popular  vote  in  the  States? 

In  the  volumes  of  the  State  statutes  passed  by  the  legislatures,  of 
course,  which  are  published  every  year  and  which  are  in  your 
Congressional  Library,  you  have  that,  but  do  you  not  also  want  to 
know  what  are  the  changes  being  made  from  month  to  month  by 
direct  popular  legislation  in  the  States?  Might  there  not  be  a 
separate  branch  of  whatever  bureau  of  information  you  may  create, 
whose  sole  business  it  would  be  to  keep  track  of  all  that  is  being 
done  in  the  States  and  to  have  a  central  reference  library  in  which 
anyone  could  ascertain  at  once  what  the  action  of  the  people  of  the 
States  has  been  upon  every  constitutional  amendment  and  upon 
referendum  and  initiative  propositions?  Such  a  matter  would  be 
entirely  outside  of  controversial  politics;  it  would  be  for  the  com- 
mon benefit  of  everybody;  and  it  would  be,  once  established,  not  a 
very  difficult  thing  to  do,  because  no  doubt  the  officers  of  the  various 
States  would  be  very  happy  to  furnish  information  to  you  upon 
those  subjects.  I  need  hardl}'^  say,  Mr.  Slayden  and  gentlemen  of 
the  committee,  that  if  you  would  like,  for  the  purposes  of  your  in- 
quiry, to  have  a  more  detailed  and  more  explicit  account  on  paper 
of  any  of  the  points  which  I  have  tried  to  call  to  your  attention, 
either  with  regard  to  the  office  of  the  parliamentary  council  or 
Avith  regard  to  the  methods  that  we  adopt  for  endeavoring  to  collect 
information  and  to  make  it  useful  to  every  one,  I  shall  be  very  happy 


CONGRESSIONAL  REFERENCE  BUREAU.  17 

to  endeavor  to  supply  it  to  you  or  to  obtain  from  England  any  infor- 
mation you  may  desire. 

The  Chairman.  I  will  say,  Mr.  Ambassador,  that  I  know  that  the 
committee  will  be  glad  to  have  that  and  with  the  idea  of  incorporat- 
ing it  into  the  hearings  on  this  bill,  if  convenient  to  you. 

Mr.  Bryce.  I  ought  to  say  one  single  word  upon  the  private 
calendar.  I  have  been  speaking  entirely  of  what  is  done  in  respect 
of  the  public  bills.  What  is  the  private  member  to  do?  The  prac- 
tice hitherto  has  been  for  the  private  member  to  either  draw  his  bill 
himself,  if  he  is  a  competent  lawyer,  or  to  get  some  competent  lawyer 
to  draw  it  for  him;  but  it  is  very  common  for  the  private  member 
to  ask  the  advice  of  some  minister  upon  the  subject  of  his  bill.  A 
private  member's  bill  can  not  pass  except  with  the  consent  of  the 
administration,  for  it  always  commands  a  majority  of  the  House  of 
Commons,  and  if  they  dislike  a  bill  they  can  urge  the  nuijority  to 
reject  it.  If  the  administration  thinks  a  bill  is  pernicious,  it  is  their 
duty  to  stop  it.  I  do  not  sa}^  they  always  do  stop  it ;  sometimes  they 
let  a  bill  which  they  do  not  altogether  approve  go  through  for  the 
sake  of  avoiding  trouble  with  some  of  their  supporters. 

It  is  a  very  common  thing  with  us  for  the  private  member  to  go 
to  a  member  of  the  administration  and  shoAv  him  his  bill  and  say 
to  him,  "  This  is  a  bill  I  am  introducing,  I  hope  you  w' ill  agree  with 
it  and  approve  it.  If  you  are  not  prepared  to  approve  of  it  at  once, 
will  you  take  it  home  and  look  at  it,  and  will  you  show  it  to  your 
departmental  advisers  and  show  it  to  the  parliamentary  council?" 
Well,  the  member  of  the  Government  will  always  do  that.  We  are 
all — ministers  and  private  members — sitting  together  in  the  same 
House. 

Ministers  are  in  the  House  of  Commons  all  the  time  and  their  ob- 
ject, of  course,  is  to  have  the  best  possible  personal  relations  with  the 
members  of  the  house,  and  not  only  with  those  on  their  own  side,  but 
those  on  the  other  side  also.  We  have  a  great  deal  of  friendliness  in 
the  House  of  Commons.  We  have  very  few  animosities,  and  any 
member,  whatever  side  of  politics  he  belongs  to,  feels  himself  free  to 
go  and  talk  to  a  minister.  In  that  way  a  great  deal  of  work  on  bills 
of  private  members  is  done.  A  member  asks  the  minister  his  views  and 
the  minister  takes  it  and  shows  it  to  his  own  advisers,  and  the  minister 
comes  back  and  says,  "Make  such  and  such  amendments  and  I  will 
help  you  to  pass  your  bill."  If  the  amendments  do  not  go  to  the  heart 
of  the  bill  and  destroy  the  main  purpose  he  has  in  view  the  private 
member  assents  and  introduces  the  amendments  which  the  minister 
asks  for  and  the  bill  may  be  passed,  supposing,  of  course,  that  there 
is  time  to  consider  it. 

In  that  way  we  do  a  great  deal  incidentially  to  improve  the  quality 
of  our  private  members'  legislation.  Let  me  add  that  although  we 
have  no  parliamentary  bureau  of  information,  there  is  a  great  store- 
house of  information  in  the  different  administrative  departments  on 
the  subjects  with  which  they  respectively  deal.  Wlienever  any  pri- 
vate member  asks  the  minister  to  put  him  in  touch  with  the  officials 
of  his  department  and  to  put  the  resources  of  the  department  as  re- 
gards information  at  his  disposal  the  request  is  never  refused.  A 
private  member  can  always  go  to  the  officials  of  any  department  and 
say  to  them,  "  I  think  of  bringing  in  a  bill  on  such  or  such  a  topic 

40435—12 2 


18  CONGRESSIONAL  REFERENCE  BUREAU. 

and  I  want  to  have  the  information  which  you  possess  in  order  to 
enable  me  to  intelligently  do  so,"  and  unless  the  information  is  of  a 
highly  confidential  character,  which,  of  course,  it  very  seldom  is,  the 
information  in  the  department  is  always  put  at  the  disposal  of  the 
private  member.  So  that,  although  we  have  not  such  a  bureau  of 
information  for  Parliament  as  you  propose  to  have  for  Congress,  we 
attain  very  nearly  the  same  object  through  the  departments,  because 
they  are  put  at  the  service  of  the  private  members  in  the  way  I  have 
indicated. 

If  there  are  any  other  points,  Mr.  Slayden,  which  you  would  like 
to  ask  me  any  question  about  I  should  be  only  too  happy  to  answer. 

Mr.  Nelson.  I  should  like  to  ask  you — you  have  suggested  that  we 
consider  information  on  European  practice.  Have  they  anything 
similar  to  this  in  European  countries  ?  Has  not  France  some  bureau 
that  helps  in  the  substance  and  form  of  legislation;  likewise  Ger- 
many ? 

Mr.  Bryce.  I  really  do  not  know  that  there  is  any  French  bureau. 
I  knoAv  that  the  French  system  is  unlike  our  own  in  giving  very  great 
power  to  committees.  A  bill  goes  to  a  committee  and  there  it  is 
carefully  considered,  and  I  fancy  that  the  committees  call  in  the 
departments  and  consult  them  about  the  bill,  but  whether  there  is 
an^T^  such  bureau  in  France  and  Germany  as  you  desire  to  create  here 
I  do  not  know.  I  think  you  may  safely  assume  there  is  something 
of  the  kind  in  Germany,  because  they  are  practical,  careful  and  exact, 
and  elaborate  in  all  their  administrative  arrangements,  but  whether 
they  put  their  information  at  the  disposal  of  the  Eeichstag  I  do  not 
Imow. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Gardner,  a  member  of  the  committee,  would 
like  to  ask  a  question  for  information. 

Mr.  Gardner.  What  proportion  of  the  ministry  are  lawyers? 

Mr.  Bryce.  It  would  not  be  very  easy  to  say,  because  a  certain 
number  of  them  might  be  nominally  lawyers  but  who  have  never 
practiced;  but  I  should  say,  speaking  from  recollection,  that  the 
chances  are  that  four  or  five  at  least  would  be  lawyers.  Of  course, 
the  attorney  general  and  solicitor  general  and  the  Scotch  and  Irish 
law  officers  are  all  lawyers,  but  they  are  not  members  of  the  cabinet. 
In  the  cabinet  probably  four  or  five  at  least  would  be  lawyers.  If  I 
were  to  take  a  little  time  I  could  think  over  the  members  of  the  cabi- 
nets to  which  I  belonged  and  I  could  tell  you. 

Mr.  Gardner.  The  British  Parliament  in  general  contains  a  com- 
paratively small  proportion  of  lawyers  as  compared  with  our  Con- 
gress ? 

Mr.  Bryce.  Yes. 

Mr.  Gardner.  I  suppose  four-fifths  of  our  House  are  lawyers. 

Mr.  Bryce.  I  should  say  a  much  smaller  proportion  with  us — much 
less  than  a  half. 

Mr.  Gardner.  Of  course,  anybody  who  has  noticed  the  English 
statutes  can  see  that  they  are  much  better  drawn  than  ours.  One 
reason,  I  think,  is  because  in  England  you  do  not  attempt  to  go  into 
details  as  we  do.  You  leave  so  much  more  to  the  executive  officers. 
I  know  you  have  written  upon  that  subject,  because  I  have  read  some 
of  your  statements.  Have  you  ever  examined  the  question  as  to  how 
the  inconsistencies  and  crudities  creep  into  our  statutes?    Have  you 


CONGRESSIONAL,  REFERENCE  BUREAU.  19 

noticed  whether  they  are  in  bills  as  originally  introduced  or  whether 
they  result  from  amendments  or  from  conference  agreements  ? 

Mr.  Bryce.  I  have  not  gone  so  far  as  to  know  whether  they  come 
in  in  conference,  but  I  presume  I  should  be  correct  in  saying  they 
largely  come  by  way  of  amendment, 

Mr.  Gardner.  In  amendment? 

Mr.  Bryce.  In  amendment — coming  by  way  of  amendment  in  one 
or  the  other  House — and  that  is  exactly  the  same  with  us.  The  things 
that  do  give  trouble  are  the  results  of  the  amendments  moved  in  the 
House. 

Mr.  Gardner.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  is  it  the  rule  in  the  British 
House  of  Commons  to  give  notice  of  amendment  ? 

Mr.  Bryce.  Yes. 

Mr.  Gardner.  And  that  is  printed  on  the  orders  of  the  day  ? 

Mr.  Bryce.  Yes. 

Mr.  Gardner.  You  see  we  have  no  such  system  as  that.  It  seems 
to  me  that  our  errors  mosth"  occur  not  from  a  faulty  original  draft, 
but  in  consequence  of  plausible,  hasty  amendments  oifered  on  the 
floor  of  the  House  or  the  Senate.  An  amendment  offered  to  one 
section  often  conflicts  with  the  provisions  of  some  other  section. 

Mr.  Bryce.  That  is  true,  Mr.  Gardner;  man}^  errors  may  come 
with  amendments,  but  I  must  frankly  confess  that  the  thing  some- 
times happens  with  us,  too,  because,  although  we  require  notice  to 
be  given  of  amendment,  we  very  often  modify  an  amendment  on  the 
spur  of  the  moment  and  introduce  other  words.  It  may  be  after 
that  amendment  is  moved  that  the  house  or  the  Government  is  not 
willing  to  accept  the  amendment  in  the  form  in  which  it  is  moved, 
but  a  change  of  expression  may  be  suggested,  and  it  may  be  accepted 
as  so  changed.  Moreover,  it  is  permitted  to  move  amendments  which 
are  not  on  the  notice  paper,  though  this  is  not  done  to  any  large 
extent. 

Mr.  Gardner.  I  suppose  amendments  to  amendments  are  made. 

Mr.  Bryce.  Yes;  amendments  to  amendments  are  constantly 
moved,  and  the  difficulties  often  arise  from  this  cause.  Any  error 
ought,  of  course,  to  be  removed  in  the  other  house.  If  error  has 
arisen  in  committee  of  the  whole,  it  ought  to  be  corrected  by  the 
house  on  report,  and  if  it  has  not  been  noticed  then  it  ought  to  be 
corrected  in  the  other  house.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  parliamentary 
counsel  to  examine  the  bill  carefully  when  it  leaves  the  house  in 
which  it  was  introduced  and  to  tell  the  minister  in  charge  what 
alterations,  if  any,  are  required  in  order  to  bring  it  in  proper  form 
and  correct  any  errors  that  have  crept  into  it.  Then  the  minister 
ought  to  arrange  that  such  errors  be  corrected  in  the  other  house. 

Mr.  Gardner.  You  know  we  have  no  stage  between  the  third  read- 
ing and  engrossment  of  a  bill. 

Mr.  Bryce.  Yes. 

Mr.  Gardner.  You  have  some  sort  of  a  stage  between  the  third 
reading  and  whatever  you  call  it — the  "  passage,"  I  think. 

Mr.  Bryce.  No  ;  we  do  not  have  it  unless  we  especially  ask  for  it. 
But  we  can  always  do  that;  we  can  add  words  or  make  amendment 
by  the  process  which  we  call  "  recommitting  "  the  bill.  And  this  can 
be  done  up  to  the  stage  of  the  third  reading  and  engrossment.  The 
only  way  to  make  a  correction  after  that  would  be  to  do  it  in  the 


20  CONGRESSIONAL  REFERENCE   BUREAU. 

other  house.  If  it  came  from  the  House  of  Lords  it  could  be  done  in 
the  House  of  Commons;  and  if  it  came  from  the  House  of  Commons 
it  could  be  done  in  the  House  of  Lords. 

Mr.  Gardner.  I  am  wondering  whether  the  superior  Avording  of 
your  legislation  did  not  arise  from  the  fact  that  you  do  not  try  to 
legislate  for  all  details  as  we  do.  We  legislate  down  to  every  detail. 
We  have  always  taken  all  discretion  possible  away  from  the  Execu- 
tive. In  examining  your  statutes  I  have  often  found  that  you  give 
the  maximum  discretion  to  your  executive  officers  and  pay  but  slight 
attention  to  details.  Do  you  not  think  that  is  one  of  the  reasons  why 
your  laws  are  so  much  better  drawn  than  ours  ? 

Mr.  Bryce.  Doubtless  that  is  one  reason.  Our  statutes  are  shorter 
and  go  less  into  minute  details.  We  are  able  to  make  them  shorter 
because  we  are  accustomed  to  confer  by  statute  large  powers  in  mak- 
ing rules  and  orders  to  various  governmental  authorities.  Parlia- 
ment was  at  first  very  jealous  of  doing  that,  delegating  anj''  of  its 
powers,  but  it  was  found  so  convenient  to  relieve  the  legislature  of 
minor  details  that  we  noAV  frec|uently  give  powder  to  an  executive 
department  to  make  rules  or  orders.  Sometimes  power  is  given  to 
the  Crown  to  make  Avhat  Ave  call  orders  in  council,  i.  e.,  rules  or  regu- 
lations which  are  framed  by  a  department  and  declared  effective  by 
the  CroAvn  at  a  meeting  of  the  Privy  Council,  then  legal  effect,  hoAv- 
ever,  being  cleriAed  from  the  power  giA^en  by  the  act  of  Parliament 
to  enact  them.  In  this  case  it  is  usually  provided  that  the  rides  or 
orders  so  made  shall  be  presented  to  both  houses  of  Parliament,  and 
that  shall  lie  upon  the  table,  both  in  the  House  of  Commons  and  iii 
the  House  of  Lords  during  a  certain  number  of  days.  During  that 
number  of  days  any  member  can  move  a  resolution  disapproving 
that  rule  or  order,  and  if  the  resolution  is  carried  the  rule  or  order 
ceases  to  have  any  effect.  In  that  way  the  authority  of  Parliament  is 
preserved  secure  and  intact,  and  the  susceptibilities  of  Parliament 
are  respected  because  the  rule  or  order  never  becomes  law,  except 
by  the  consent  of  Parliament.  It  is  issued  in  pursuance  of  the 
authority  given  by  a  statute,  and  if  subsequently  disapproved  by 
either  house  of  Parliament — — 

Mr.  Gardner.  It  takes  positive  action  to  disapprove  of  it? 

Mr.  Bryce.  It  takes  positive  action  to  disapprove  of  it,  and  this 
seldom  happens,  because  the  administration  seldom  attempts  to  enact 
by  this  method  anything  regarding  which  serious  differences  of 
opinion  could  arise.  In  every  country  and  under  every  government 
there  is  a  A^ast  deal  of  entirely  uncontroversial  business,  and  it  is 
a  great  advantage  to  be  able  to  dispose  of  such  matters  in  this  way. 
I  need  hardly  say  that  the  matters  so  dealt  with  are  matters  of  de- 
tail; we  would  not  attempt  to  handle  by  such  methods  questions  of 
principle.  The  details  are  very  large.  The  number  of  rules  and 
orders  published  every  year  make  a  volume  a  good  deal  larger  than 
the  volume  of  the  statutes  passed  directly  by  Parliament. 

Mr.  Evans.  Mr.  Ambassador,  I  would  like  to  ask  who  appoints  the 
parliamentary  counsel  ? 

Mr.  Bryce.  He  is  appointed  by  the  administration — ^by  the  prime 
minister. 

The  Chairman.  But  he  is  nonpartisan? 

Mr.  Bryce.  Yes;  he  is  selected  in  respect  of  his  legal  abilities  and 
experience.     He  is  appointed,  like  all  the  rest  of  our  civil-service 


CONGRESSIONAL  REFERENCE   BUREAU.  21 

appointees,  to  be  a  permanent  official,  and  he  is  bound  to  strip  him- 
self of  his  political  predilections,  whatever  they  may  have  been,  when 
he  enters  the  permanent  civil  service  of  the  Crown.  He  would  not 
be  allowed  to  make  a  public  speech  upon  any  subject  of  a  party  na- 
ture or  to  join  any  political  organization.  Anything  of  that  kind 
would  lead  to  his  being  censured,  and  probably  to  his  being  dismissed. 

The  Chairman.  Is  his  appointment  for  an  indefinite  time? 

Mr.  Bryce.  For  an  indefinite  time :  practically  for  life — i.  e.,  until 
he  reaches  the  age  at  which  civil  servants  retire. 

Mr.  Nelson.  In  Great  Britain,  Mr.  Brvce,  there  is  no  written  con- 
stitution, and  therefore  no  appeal  to  the  courts  on  the  ground  of  the 
constitutionality  of  an  act  of  Parliament.  What  is  the  eti'ect  of  an 
incongruity  by  subsequent  act  of  Parliament  ? 

Mr.  Bryce.  It  is  a  patent  incongruity — that  is  to  say,  if  the  second 
act  is  clearly  inconsistent  with  the  first,  the  later  is  deemed  to  re- 
peal the  earlier.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  two  could  be  possibly 
reconciled,  then  it  becomes  a  question  whether  the  second  was  in- 
tended to  repeal  the  first ;  and  this  would  be  a  question  of  legal  con- 
struction Avhicli  the  courts  Avould  deal  with  just  as  they  would  with 
the  interpretation  of  a  statute. 

Mr.  Nelson.  In  this  country,  with  our  constitutions,  State  and 
National,  do  you  not  deem  it  therefore  much  more  important,  com- 
paratively, that  our  laws  be  worded  carefully  on  that  account?  In 
the  British  Parliament  there  is  no  danger  on  the  constitutionality; 
here  we  have  a  danger.     "NA^iat  is  your  opinion  ? 

Mr.  Bryce.  I  could  certainly  assent  to  that  proposition.  It  seems 
to  me  that  this  is  one  of  the  facts  that  makes  legislation  need  so  much 
care  in  the  United  States,  because  with  us  you  have  only  got  to  con- 
sider whether  a  law  is  wise  in  substance  and  whether  it  is  properly 
drawn,  but  here  you  have  a  question  to  consider  in  addition,  namely, 
whether  it  is  compatible  with  the  Federal  Constitution  or  that  of  the 
State,  as  the  case  may  be. 

Mr.  Nelson.  Another  question  we  would  like  to  have  the  opinion 
of  the  ambassador  on  is :  Does  this  parliamentary  counsel  change 
with  parties  or  does  he  remain? 

Mr.  Bryce.  He  remains  permanent,  but  then  that  is  the  general 
rule  of  the  civil  service  in  Britain.  The  civil  service  does  not  change 
at  all  upon  change  of  administration,  and  we  have,  I  think,  speak- 
ing roughly,  something  between  30  and  40  people,  all  of  whom  are 
in  Parliament,  who,  when  one  minister  goes  out  and  another  comes 
in,  change,  and  all  the  rest  of  the  civil  service  remains  unchanged; 
and  he  remains  from  one  administration  to  another.  I  recollect  one, 
a  great  personal  friend  of  mine,  and  one  of  the  ablest  men  I  ever 
knew,  who  was  parliamentary  counsel  20  years  or  more.  I  really 
do  not  think  there  was  anybody  the  country  was  more  indebted  to 
during  those  years  than  that  parliamentary  coinisel.  He  was  a  man 
of  such  extraordinary  talent  and  knowledge  of  the  law  and  so  much 
sound  judgment  that  every  minister  who  he  had  to  deal  with  respected 
and  trusted  him,  whatever  party  the  minister  belonged  to.  As  he 
was  my  personal  friend,  I  happened  to  Imow  he  had  political  opin- 
ions, but  nobody  would  have  known  it  unless  intimately  acquainted 
with  him.  The  same  was  true  of  his  successor,  who  retired  some  years 
ago,  but  is  happily  still  living  and  serving  his  country  with  distinc- 
tion in  another  capacity. 


22  CONGEESSIONALr  REFERENCE   BUREAU. 

Mr.  Nelson.  Of  course,  what  is  true  of  the  chief  is  also  true  of  his 
assistant? 

Mr.  Bryce.  Yes ;  it  is  true  equally  of  the  assistant  counsel.  As  re- 
gards the  officials,  let  me  take  the  instance  of  such  a  department  as 
the  board  of  trade.  I  was  for  a  time  president  of  that  department, 
and  I  and  the  parliamentary  secretary  were  the  only  persons  on  it 
who  came  in  and  went  out  with  an  administration.  All  the  other 
officials — there  were  more  than  300 — remained.  In  the  treasury 
department  the  only  people  who  changed  were  those  four  or  five  who 
sat  in  the  House  of  Commons,  and  all  the  rest  of  the  staff  of  the 
treasury,  just  like  all  the  staff  of  the  board  of  trade,  except  the  par- 
liamentar}^  secretary  and  the  president,  remained  unchanged. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Ambassador,  we  are  greatly  obliged  to  you 
for  this  most  able  statement  of  the  practice  in  the  United  Kingdom, 
to  which  we  owe  so  much,  and  we  will  be  happy  to  have  you  remain 
as  long  as  you  please  and  come  as  often  as  you  like.  I  want  to  say 
to  Mr.  Nelson,  at  whose  instigation  this  committee  was  called,  that 
if  he  wants  to  have  some  other  gentleman  address  us  before  we  take 
a  recess  we  will  be  glad  to  hear  them  now. 

Mr.  Nelson.  Dr.  Cleveland,  the  chairman  of  the  Committee  on 
Economy  and  Efficiency,  has  another  appointment,  and  I  would  like 
to  hear  from  him  as  soon  as  possible ;  but  first  I  would  like  to  have 
a  statement  from  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  Mr.  Putnam. 

STATEMENT    OF    HON.    HERBERT   PUTNAM,    LIBRARIAN    OF 

CONGRESS, 

Mr.  Putnam.  At  this  stage,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  shall  simpl}^  ask  that 
the  record  shall  note  the  report  to  which  Mr.  Nelson  referred,  sub- 
mitted by  me  on  April  6,  1911,  to  Congress  on  the  general  subject 
of  legislative  reference  bureaus.  That  report  is  available  as  Sen- 
ate Document  No.  7,  Sixty-second  Congress,  first  session,  and  I  do 
not  recommend  that  it  be  reprinted  in  full,  but  I  should  be  glad  if 
the  committee  decide  it  feasible  to  reprint  the  first  four  pages  as  part 
of  the  record  of  this  hearing. 

Mr.  TowNSEND.  I  move  that  we  comply  with  the  Librarian's  re- 
quest that  the  first  four  pages  be  reprinted  in  these  hearings. 

Mr.  Putnam.  Merely  that  the  first  four  pages  of  this  report  may 
appear  in  the  printed  hearings  on  this  bill. 

The  Chairsian.  That  will  be  granted. 

Mr.  Putnam.  It  seems  extravagant  to  reprint  it  entirely,  as  the 
whole  is  available.  The  report  pointed  out  what  we  understood  to  be 
the  functions  of  a  legislative  reference  bureau.  It  quotes  the  State 
statutes  creating  such,  and  some  opinions  as  to  their  service ;  it  dis- 
tinguishes certain  of  the  work  commonly  performed  by  such  bureaus 
in  the  several  States  as  already  undertaken  in  a  measure  by  the 
Library  of  Congress  in  its  present  operations,  but  it  points  out  that 
to  accomplish  what  legislative  reference  bureaus  seek  to  accomplish  ^^ 
a  whole  must  require  a  new  and  especially  an  elaborate  organization, 
elaborate  also  beyond  any  undertaken  in  any  State  of  the  Union, 
because  the  problem  here  would  be  more  elaborate  and  more  complex. 
It  distinguishes  the  function  of  bill  drafting  from  the  other  work  of 
such  a  bureau,  which  consists  chiefly  in  collecting  the  data,  organ- 
izing, digesting,  and  concentrating  it  upon  9,  particular  problem. 


CONGRESSIONAL  REFERENCE.  BUREAU.  23 

The  first  four  pages  of  Mr.  Putnam's  report  referred  to  are  as 
follows : 

Legislative  Reference  Bureaus— Letter  from  the  Librarian  of  Congress 
Transmitting  Special  Report  Relative  to  Legislative  Reference  Bu- 
reaus. 

Library  of  Congress, 

Office  of  the  Librarian, 

Washington,  April  6,  1911. 
Mr.  President  :  The  introduction  at  the  second  session  of  the  Sixty-first  Con- 
gress of  several  bills  looking  to  the  estblishment  of  a  legislative  reference 
(and  bill  drafting)  bureau  at  Washington  indicates  an  interest  in  the  subject 
which  will  induce  discussion  and  perhaps  specific  action.  The  accoiui)anying 
documents  are  submitted  as  contributing  preliminary  information  which  may  be 
of  service.    They  are: 

"  legislative  reference  work. 

"1.  Memorandum  as  to  the  functions  of  such  a  bureau. 

"2.  New  York  State:  Two  decades  of  Comparative  Legislation.  Extract 
from  an  address  by  Dr.  Robert  H.  Whitten,  librarian  New  York  Public  Service 
Commission,  first  district,  at  joint  session  of  National  Association  of  State 
Libraries  and  American  Association  of  Law  Libraries,  July,  1909. 

"3.  Wisconsin:  Extract  from  a  paper  by  Dr.  Charles  McCarthy  (read  before 
the  Portland  conference,  1905,  of  the  American  Library  Association)  descriptive 
of  such  functions  and  the  requirements,  based  particularly  upon  the  experience 
in  Wisconsin. 

"  4.  Comparison  of  New  York  and  Wisconsin  plans  for  legislative  reference 
work.  Extract  from  an  address  by  Mr.  Johnson  Brigham,  State  librarian  of 
Iowa,  before  the  National  Association  of  State  Libraries,  May,  1907. 

"  5.  Compilation  of  laws  establishing  legislative  reference  bureaus  in  various 
States. 

"  6.  Legislative  reference  bulletins  published  in  the  various  States. 

"  7.  Subjects  treated  in  the  reference  lists  issued  by  the  Library  of  Congress. 

"  indexes  and  compilations  of  law. 

"  S.  Extract  from  Librarian's  letter  of  estimates  of  October  6,  1902,  and  a 
communication  to  the  subcommittee  on  appropriations,  December  3,  1902,  with 
reference  to  a  permanent  corps  for  such  a  purpose. 

"  9.  Memorandum  prepared  in  1907  by  Dr.  George  W.  Scott,  law  librarian 
the  Library  of  Congress,  on  statutory  law  service.  [The  work  of  preparing 
an  index  to  the  Statutes  at  Large,  since  completed  by  the  issue  of  the  second 
volume  in  January.  1911.  was  then  in  operation  at  the  law  library,  under  appro- 
priation by  Congress.  The  memorandum  proposed  that  the  corps  of  experts 
organized  for  this  purpose  should  be  continued  and  enlarged  as  a  permanent 
corps  for  the  preparation  of  other  indexes,  digests,  and  compilations  of  law.] 

"  BILL    drafting. 

"10.  Extract  from  an  address  by  Hon.  James  Bryce  (British  ambassador) 
before  the  New  York  State  Bar  Association,  January  24,  1908. 

"  11.  Extract  from  F.  J.  Stimsou's  '  Popular  Lawmaking,'  1910,  entitled  '  The 
need  of  parliamentary  draftsmen.' 

"12.  Extract  from  Recommendation  of  a  Committee  of  the  American  Bar 
Association  (headed  by  Judge  Baldwin),  'On  improving  methods  of  legisla- 
tion,' proposing  (for  each  State  and  the  United  States)  a  'joint  standing  com- 
mittee (of  the  legislative  body)  for  the  revision  of  bills,'  with  power  to  employ 
experts. 

"  13.  Extract  from  Dr.  Paul  S.  Reinsch  'American  legislatures  aud  legislative 
methods,'  1907. 

"14.  Statutes  and  rules  relating  to  bill  drafting — New  York  and  Connecticut. 

"  15.  Extracts  from  the  messages  of  the  governors  of  Connecticut ;  1907,  Gov. 
Woodruff;  1909,  Gov.  Lilley;  1911.  Gov.  Baldwin. 

"  16.  Bill  drafting  in  Great  Britain  and  the  British  colonies.  Extracts  from 
'  Legislative  methods  and  forms,'  by  Sir  Courtnenay  Ubert.  1901,  and  from  the 
Journal  of  the  Society  of  Comparative  Legislation,  volumes  1-2,  and  new  series, 
volumes  1-2. 


24  CONGRESSIONAL.  REFERENCE   BUREAU. 

(_■  r  "  'j  ,'  ■     ■-■:"■;"  ■-;■(■■''"'■■.  . 

"  STATISTICS. 

"3  7.  Rills  and  joint  resolutions  introduced  in  Congress  und  laws  jiassed 
(56th  to  (!lst  Conjiresses.  inclusive).  State  and  Fe<leral  Ijegislation,  1906-7 
and  3907-8. 

"BILLS    INTRODUCED    IN    THE    SIXTY-KIRST    CONGRESS. 

"IS.  Proposals  for  a  national  bureau:  Bills  introduced  at  the  second  session, 
Sixty-first  Congress;  also  amendment  to  the  sundry  civil  bill  adopted  In  the 
Senate,  but  not  included  in  the  bill  as  enacted." 

General  eons i derations. — The  main  object  is  the  improvement  of  legislation. 
The  means  proposed  are — 

1.  Improvement  in  substance  by  the  assurance  of  adequate  data. 

2.  Improvement  in  form  through  the  employment  of  experts  considering 
form  alone. 

The  data. — In  so  far  as  these  consist  of  printed  literature  in  its  regular  forms, 
they  are  already  available  to  Congress  in  the  Library  of  Congress,  its  collections 
(of  statutes,  decisions,  commentaries,  and  the  miscellaneous  literature  of  sta- 
tistic, theory,  and  discussion)  being  already  one  of  the  largest  in  the  world 
and  undergoing  improvement  without  stint. 

All  of  the  above  is  classified,  catalogued,  and  made  to  respond  to  any  par- 
ticular query,  whether  from  Congress  as  a  whole  or  any  conmiittee  of  Congress 
or  any  individual  Member.  Lists  of  references  to  the  material  (whether  docu- 
ment, monograph,  society  publication,  or  periodical)  bearing  upon  particular 
topics  under  discussion  in  Congress — exactly  such  lists  ;is  are  issued  by  certain 
State  legislative  reference  bureaus — are  issued  by  the  Library  of  Congres  (for 
examples  see  Appendix  No.  7).  Other  such  lists  exist  in  typewritten  form  and 
are  freely  supplied  upon  request.  A  request,  whether  from  Congress  or  a  com- 
mittee or  a  Member  for  similar  references  to  topics  not  so  broadly  treated,  is 
always  met  by  the  Library  within  its  abilities.  The  staff  of  the  Library  includes 
men  highly  expert  in  the  preparation  of  such  lists,  so  far  as  this  is  within  the 
scope  of  bibliography  proper  or  research  work  of  a  biI)lographic  nature. 

A  legislative  reference  bureau  goes  further.  It  uudert.'ikes  not  merely  to 
classify  and  to  catalogue,  but  to  draw  off  from  a  general  collection  the  litera- 
ture— that  is.  the  data — bearing  upon  a  particular  legislative  i)roject.  It  indexes, 
extracts,  compiles.  It  acquires  extra  copies  of  society  publications  and  periodi- 
cals and  breaks  these  up  for  the  sake  of  the  articles  pertinent  to  a  particular 
subject.  It  clips  from  newspapers;  and  it  classifies  the  extracts,  the  compila- 
tions, the  articles,  and  the  clippings  in  scrapbook.  or  portfolio,  or  vertical  file,  in 
such  a  way  that  all  material  relating  to  that  topic  is  kei)t  together  and  can  be 
drawn  forth  at  a  moment's  notice.  To  printed  literature  it  often  adds  written 
memoranda  as  to  fact  and  even  opinion  as  to  merit,  which  it  secures  by  corre- 
spondence with  experts. 

The  above  work,  which  t)rganizes  and  concentrates  all  the  data  pertinent  to  a 
question  in  such  form  as  to  be  readily  responsive,  is  beyond  the  abilities  of  the 
Library  with  its  present  organization.  The  Library  would  gladly  undertake  It; 
it  could  inidertake  it  without  additional  appropriation  for  the  material  itself, 
so  far  as  this  is  in  printed  form;  but  it  would  require  for  it  an  enlargement  of 
its  present  Divisions  of  I^aw,  r>ocuments.  and  Bibliography,  and  in  addition  the 
creation  of  a  new  division  under  the  title  of  a  Legislative  or  Congressional  Ref- 
erence Division. 

Inde.res,  dif/ests.  and  coniiiilations  of  Unr. — As  to  the  utility  of  such,  and  the 
qualifications  requisite.  I  have  no  reason  to  modify  the  opinions  submitted  with  my 
estimates  of  1012.  The  ensuing  experience  with  the  index  to  the  Statutes  at  Ijarge 
but  confirms  the  opinion  that  the  work  (»f  indexing  the  statutes,  even  the  Fedei'al 
statutes  of  this  country,  requires  scientific  treatment  by  a  corps  of  exi)erts  with 
a  substantial  general  education,  legal  training,  and  experience  in  this  class  of 
work,  and  selected  with  regard  solely  to  these  iiualiflcations.  It  confirms  also 
the  expectation  that  where  the  Library  was  charged  with  such  a  task  the  men 
would  be  so  selected  and  the  work  would  be  scientifically  accompli sheil. 

Such  a  corjis  once  organized  and  experienced,  the  economy  of  continuing  it  as 
a  permanent  bureau  is  obvious,  as,  on  the  other  hand,  is  the  extravagance  of 
dispersing  it.  The  corps  which  handled  this  particular  work  on  the  Federal 
Statutes  would  not  of  course  be  sufficiently  large,  or  contain  the  varied  accom 
plishm'ents  requisite  for  indexes,  digests,  and  compilations  of  the  various 
material  of  concern  to  Congress  and  to  the  Federal  authorities;  especially  would 
It  be  lacking  in  experts  qualified  to  deal  with  the  legislation  of  foreign  coun- 


COKGEESSIONAL  REFERENCE   BUREAU.  25' 

tries  (the  interest  of  which  is  of  relatively  small  concern  to  State  legislators, 
but  is  of  increasinj;  concern  to  Congress).  The  organization  suggested  in  my 
estimates  of  1002  might  be  suitable  as  a  beginning;  the  salaries  would,  how- 
evier,  be  altogether  too  small.  The  conduct  of  the  work  in  particular  shouhl 
require  a  salary  of  $5,000. 

Bill  drafting. — The  drafting  of  bills,  or  the  revision  with  reference  to  form 
of  bills  drafted  and  othei'wise  ready  for  enactment,  certainly  requires  experts 
educated  to  an  accurate  use  of  the  English  language,  trained  in  the  law,  compe- 
tent to  ascertain  and  compare  precedent  legislation,  and,  so  far  as  practicable, 
exactly  familiar  with  this.  (See  various  appendixes,  including  the  memoran- 
dum of  our  law  librarian,  1907.)  The  familiarity  with  antecedent  and  compara- 
tive legislation  gained  through  the  indexing,  digesting,  and  compiling  of  it, 
would  doubtless  be  a  valuable  auxiliary  qualification  in  any  bill  drafter.  It 
can  not,  however,  be  said  that  for  the  drafting  of  bills  the  current  association 
with  such  other  work  is  indispensable.  The  bill  drafter  should  have  its  results 
at  hand;  should  be  expert  in  the  use  of  them;  but  he  need  not  necessarily  him- 
self have  produced  these  results  in  order  to  utilize  them  properly. 

Assuming  therefore  that  the  work  of  a  legislative  reference  bureau  (in  addi- 
tion to  that  part  of  it  which  is  already  being  undertaken  here)  should  be  un- 
dertaken by  the  Library  of  Congress,  and  that  the  work  of  indexing,  digesting, 
jind  compiling  laws  should  be  part  of  it,  it  does  not  necessarily  follow  that  the 
drafting  or  revision  of  the  bills  themselves  should  be  associated  with  it.  That 
Congress  should  employ  a  corps  of  bill  drafters  is  obvious ;  that  these  should 
be  experts  and  nonpartisan,  whose  purpose  would  be  purely  scientific,  is  equally 
obvious ;  but  these  considerations  ought  not  to  imply  that,  the  qualifications 
could  be  secured  only  by  the  selection  and  maintenance  of  a  corps  outside  of 
the  legislative  establishment.  Congress  might  well  prefer  otherwise;  and  there 
seems  no  necessary  obstacle  to  the  creation  of  a  corps  of  experts  as  part  of  the 
organization  of  Senate  and  House,  provided  Congress  itself  really  desires  that 
the  sole  considerations  in  the  selection  of  the  men  shall  be  those  above  noted. 

Wherever  the  work  is  to  be  placed,  the  provision  for  it  should  be  ample.  Its 
efiiciency  will  depend  not  upon  a  large  number  of  routine  workers,  but  upon 
the  high  qualifications  of  a  few.  No  expert  adequate  to  such  a  task  could  be 
secured  for  less  than  a  salary  of  $5,000,  and  at  least  four  or  five  experts  of  this 
grade  should  be  requisite,  aided  by  an  auxiliary  corps  of  clerks,  stenograph- 
ers, etc. 

Even  then  it  is  clear  that  the  service  of  such  experts  should  not  be  dissi- 
pated needlessly.  To  invoke  them  at  the  initial  stage  of  every  bill  introduced 
would  be  extravagant  and  cast  upon  the  corps  an  overwhelming  burden  (this 
will  appear  upon  consideration  of  the  number  of  bills  introduced  into  a  single 
Congress — during  the  Sixty-first,  for  instance,  some  44,000).  The  drafters 
shonld  be  at  the  disposal  of  any  committee  considering  or  proposing  to  report 
a  bill.  Beyond  this  they  ought  not  to  be  called  upon,  imless  in  connection  with 
some  projected  bill  of  interest  to  a  considerable  group. 

The  organization  requisite  to  a  congressional  (legislative)  reference  bureau 
will  therefore  depend  upon  the  functions  proposed  for  such  a  bureau,  whether 
(1(  merely  the  acquisition  of  the  data,  the  organization  of  these  to  respond 
to  the  legislative  need,  and  the  aid  to  their  use;  or  in  addition  to  this,  (2)  the 
preparation  of  indexes,  digests,  and  compilations  of  law  not  having  directly 
siich  ends  in  view;  or  in  addition  to  both  the  above,  (3)  the  drafting  and  re- 
vision of  bills. 

In  any  ease  it  must  be  emphasized — - 

1.  That  the  organization  must  be  elaborate  beyond  that  provided  by  any 
State,  since  the  subjects  to  be  dealt  Avith  are  far  wider  in  scope,  the  material 
more  remote,  more  complex,  and  more  difficult,  and  the  precedents  less 
available. 

2.  That  (the  field  being  unique)  the  needs  (in  the  way  of  organization)  can 
be  ascertained  only  by  experiment.  The  first  appropriation  should  be.  therefore, 
a  "  lump  sum." 

.3.  That  for  the  work  to  be  scientific  (i.  e.,  having  only  truth  as  its  object) 
it  must  be  strictly  nonpartisan ;  and  that,  therefore,  whatever  the  appointing 
or  administrative  authority,  the  selection  of  the  experts  and  the  direction  of  the 
work,  should  by  law  and  in  fact  be  assuredly  nonpartisan. 
Respectfully  submitted. 

Herbert  Putnam. 

Librarian  of  Congress. 
The  President  of  the  Senate. 


26  CONGRESSIONAL.  REFERENCE   BUREAU. 

_  ,         .,     .  "Ti 

We  are  heartil.y  in  sj'mpath}^  with  the  general  purpose  of  such  a 
measure  as  this,  distinguishing  what  we  believe  to  be  of  essential  im- 
portance as  an  outcome  of  our  ordinary  work  as  a  library  in  its 
particular  relation  to  Congress  as  a  legislative  library,  distinguish- 
ing that  from  the  function  of  bill  drafting.  The  first  we  should 
heartily  welcome  an  opportunity  to  do;  the  function  of  bill  drafting, 
if  it  should  be  attached  to  the  bureau,  we  should  cheerfully  under- 
take in  precisel}^  the  same  way  as  we  were  ready  to  undertake  the 
index  to  the  Statutes  at  Large. 

And,  finall}^,  the  report  concludes  with  emphasis  upon  the  need 
that  such  a  bureau,  if  established,  should  be  truly  scientific  and  non- 
partisan ;  and  I  therefore  regard  it  as  a  happy  augury  that  this  hear- 
ing has  begun  with  the  testimony  of  one  whose  sole  interest  in  the 
matter  is  scientific.  The  earlier  of  the  several  bills  introduced  were 
reprinted  in  my  report.  The  bill  18720,  introduced  on  January  25, 
1912,  I  had  been  consulted  upon,  and  I  am  free  to  say  that  it  em- 
bodied my  best  opinion  at  that  time  as  to  an  efficient  form  of  a  bill  as  a 
foundation  of  such  a  bureau,  if  it  should  be  decided  upon,  and  in- 
clude the  bill-drafting  feature. 

Mr.  Gardner.  A  question 

Mr,  Putnam.  It  was  merely  to  this  purpose  that  I  was  to  be  heard 
now,  otherwise  I  would  cheerfully  answer  any  questions  that  you 
desire. 

Mr.  Gardner.  I  shall  accommodate  myself  to  Mr.  Nelson's  wishes. 
Are  we  going  to  sit  during  the  session  of  the  House  ? 

Mr.  Putnam.  I  understand  that  some  of  the  other  witnesses  come 
from  a  distance. 

Mr.  Gardner.  I  should  like  to  ask  some  questions  later. 

Mr.  Nelson.  The  librarian  will  again  be  with  us;  but  there  are 
some  gentlemen  who  come  from  a  distance  and  who  must  go  again, 
and  you  and  I  had  an  understanding  that  we  would  sit  after  dinner, 
I  believe. 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Nelson.  Dr.  Cleveland  has  to  get  away,  and  I  should  like  very 
much  if  the  committe  will  hear  from  him.  He  has  made  a  very  care- 
ful study  of  our  laws  and  our  departments,  and  can  give  us.  I  think, 
some  helpful  suggestions  that  will  make  for  efficiency  in  economy 
and  in  legislation  generally. 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  will  be  glad  to  hear  Dr.  Cleveland. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  FREDERICK  A.  CLEVELAND,  CHAIRMAN 
OF  THE  PRESIDENT'S  COMMISSION  ON  ECONOMY  AND 
EFFICIENCY. 

Mr.  Cleveland.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee, 
in  order  that  I  may  speak  directly  to  the  point  and  not  lose  time, 
I  will  answer  the  questions  which  have  been  handed  to  me  by  Mr. 
Nelson. 

Q.  What,  in  your  opinion,  would  a  legislative  bureau  add  ? — A.  It 
seems  evident  to  us  all,  I  think,  after  listening  to  the  remarks  of 
Ambassador  Bryce,  that  it  would  add  two  elements  or  services  that 
are  not  at  the  present  time  adequately  provided  for.  In  the  first 
place,  it  would  add  a  scientific  agency  for  the  purpose  of  accumulat- 
ing the  data  necessary  to  the  consideration  of  policies  which  are  to 


CONGRESSIONAL  REFERENCE  BUREAU.  27 

be  incorporated  in  legislation;  in  the  second  place,  it  would  add  a 
professional  agency  competent  to  advise  and  counsel  legislators. 

Q.  How  would  it  relate  to  your  work  ? — A.  The  work  of  the  Presi- 
dent's commission  has  to  do  with  subjects  of  administration.  As  I 
understand,  the  work  of  Congress  has  to  do  with  the  determination 
of  policies  and  the  enactment  of  policies  into  law,  while  the  adminis- 
tration imder  the  President  has  to  do  with  the  execution  of  policies 
which  been  determined  by  Congress.  In  both  of  these  fields  there 
are  very  large  technical  problems.  Necessarily  the  questions  which 
go  to  the  determination  of  policies — decision  as  to  whether  or  not 
laws  are  needed — whether  Avork  shall  be  undertaken  (as  in  the  plan- 
ning for  work  in  making  the  budget),  what  organization  shall  be 
provided,  what  shall  be  the  funds  made  available — all  of  these  are 
questions  that  are  quite  apart  from  those  relating  to  the  subject  of 
administration.  Administration  necessarily  deals  with  the  economy 
and  efficiency  with  which  the  machinery  of  Government  devoted  to 
the  execution  of  policies  is  used.  In  the  consideration  of  subjects 
of  policy — the  planning  of  work  to  be  done  and  the  organization  to 
be  provided — the  Congress  must  necessarily  take  into  consideration 
the  needs  of  the  people.  The  question  before  Congress  is.  What  is 
demanded  of  the  Government  in  order  that  it  may  serve  the  people 
by  doing  for  them  what  no  private  organization  can,  with  the  same 
facility,  justice,  or  cost? 

What  are  the  public  welfare  interests  which  demand  governmental 
action?  On  the  other  hand,  just  as  soon  as  funds  are  provided  and 
an  organization  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  executive  for  carrying 
out  an  established  policy  or  legislative  determination,  it  becomes  a 
question  of  business.  From  this  point  on  service  to  the  pul)iic  re- 
quires the  disciplining,  directing,  and  controlling  of  an  organization, 
for  the  purpose  of  getting  a  result;  the  use  of  money  to  provide  the 
means  for  accomplishing  results ;  and  the  use  of  funds  for  (.he  organi- 
zation and  the  equipment  in  the  most  effective  and  economical  way. 
The  whole  subject  of  administration  carries  with  it  a  very  liighly 
intricate  and  involved  technique,  and  in  a  Government  such  as  the 
United  States  it  involves  practically  all  of  the  technique  and  com- 
plex problems  of  private  business.  That  is,  Avhat  would  engage  the 
attention  of  a  president  of  a  railroad,  of  the  head  of  a  manufacturing 
establishment,  of  the  head  of  a  university,  of  a  research  laboratory, 
in  every  one  of  the  thousand  different  undertakings  of  the  Govern- 
ment may  be  found  the  same  technical  questions  that  must  be  con- 
sidered in  the  administration  of  each  of  the  similar  undertakings 
conducted  as  a  private  enterprise.  This  is  what  is  involved  in  the 
execution  of  the  policies  which  have  been  determined  on  and  enacted 
into  law  by  the  Congress.  I  would  say,  therefore,  that  the  relalion 
of  such  an  agency  as  the  one  here  proposed,  a  legislative  reference 
bureau,  to  the  administration,  would  be  (1)  to  ascertain  what  are 
the  conditions  under  which  the  administration  must  work  before  a 
bill  is  drawn  and  before  Congress  places  upon  the  administration 
the  duty  of  executing  a  policy;  (2)  to  ascertain  what  is  the  best  form 
of  organization,  the  best  machinery  to  be  provided  by  Congress  for 
doing  this  work;  (3)  to  find  out  what  amount  of  funds  will  be  re- 
quired currently  in  order  to  enable  the  administration  to  carry  on 
the  work  effectively,  and  what  restrictions  or  what  conditions  should 
be  attached  to  the  spending  of  these  funds  in  order  to  control  th^ 


28  CONGRESSIONAL  IIEFERENCE   BUREAU. 

policy  of  the  (Tovernment  without  impairing  the  efficiency  of  officers 
who  are  charged  with  the  exercise  of  cliscretion  in  directing  the  work. 

It  is  in  these  relations  that  I  think  Members  of  Congress  can  find 
much  that  is  worthy  of  consideration.  Many  bills  are  drawn  which 
do  not  properly  take  into  consideration  either  the  proper  organiza- 
tion to  be  provided;  the  equipment  necessary  to  make  it  effective; 
the  funds  needed  in  order  to  provide  for  current  expenses  and 
maintenance;  the  discretion  Avhich  should  be  left  to  the  officer,  and 
for  the  exercise  of  which  he  should  be  held  responsible.  Further 
than  this,  very  frequently  the  administrator  finds  that  he  is  so 
thoroughl}^  handicapped  by  a  new  duty  added  or  a  new  provision 
made  which  he  must  carry  into  force  that  it  not  only  makes  him 
inefficient  in  doing  the  new  work,  but  the  character  of  this  new  work 
is  such  as  to  render  him  less  eflficient  in  doing  the  work  wiiich  he 
already  had  in  hand. 

We  find  many  instances  in  the  service  here  of  work  assigned  by 
Congress  that  is  diametrically  opposed  to  the  main  purposes  of  the 
organization.  This  puts  an  administrator  under  the  burden  of  work- 
ing at  cross  purposes.  His  chief  duty,  we  will  say,  is  to  foster  or 
promote  the  economic  welfare  of  the  people.  He  may  be  charged 
with  the  promotion  of  agricultural  or  mining  or  other  interests.  At 
the  same  time  he  may  have  imposed  on  him  the  duty  of  repressing 
or  regulating  it  in  such  a  manner  as  to  prevent  it  from  developing 
along  the  most  profitable  lines. 

As  a  matter  of  Government  policy  it  is  needful  that  agricultural 
l^roduction  be  promoted,  and  to  this  end  the  Government  point  the 
way  to  profitable  returns.  As  a  matter  of  policy  it  is  needful  to 
protect  the  public  health,  and  as  a  means  to  this  end  inspect  and 
regulate  agricultural  production — if  need  be  prohibit  processes  which 
are  highly  profitable.  Since  the  one  policy  is  going  to  stand  in  the 
waj^  of  the  other  policy,  however,  it  is  not  the  part  of  wisdom  to 
place  the  administration  of  these  two  policies  in  the  same  hands. 
If  you  do,  you  are  either  going  to  have  a  fight  on  your  hands,  or  else 
one  of  the  policies  is  going  to  suffer;  one  administrative  agency  is 
going  to  become  inefficient  and  ineffective — is  not  going  to  perform 
its  functions  efficiently.  Either  one  agency  under  the  executive  head 
is  going  to  lie  down  before  the  other,  which  represents  the  major 
interest,  or  a  conflict  must  ensue,  which  will  mean  very  large  ex- 
pense, very  gi-eat  w^aste  of  time  and  resources,  and  corresponding 
inefficiency  in  the  service. 

A  proper  correlation  of  the  considerations  which  come  before  the 
legislator  and  the  administrator  is  the  answer  to  your  questions.  An 
agency  which  can  get  before  the  legislator  the  facts  pertaining  to 
the  needs  of  the  people  as  a  basis  for  the  determination  of  policy  to 
be  executed  into  law,  also  one  which  may  take  into  account  the  con- 
ditions under  which  the  administration  must  labor  in  executing  pro- 
visions of  law  to  meet  the  needs  of  the  people— what  conditions  must 
be  reckoned  with  in  ordei-  to  make  that  organization  effective  and 
accomplish  a  result  efficiently,  these  are  relations  that  should  be  con- 
sidered scientifically;  the  conclusions  reached  should  be  availed  of 
for  the  purpose  of  advising  legislators  professionally. 

Q.  In  your  opinion,  should  this  department  be  nonpartisan  in 
every  way,  or  are  questions  of  legislation  in  your  opinion  such  as  are 
necessarily   partisan   in   character? — A.  Whatever   be   the   partisan 


CONGRESSIONAL   REFERENCE  BUREAU.  29* 

character  of  a  measure  in  its  initial  stages,  whatever  the  partisan  or- 
ganization which  accepts  responsibility  for  promotion,  Avhatever  the 
partisan  agency  which  avails  itself  of  the  opportunity  to  advocate  a 
measure  which  is  based  on  a  much-felt  social  want,  whatever  the 
motive  that  demands  enactment  into  law,  it  is  evident  that  the  con- 
siderations which  should  come  before  Congress,  as  a  whole,  should 
be  based  on  general  welfare,  and  general  welfare  is  nonpartisan. 
The  welfare  of  the  country  not  only  demands  that  Congress,  but  also 
the  people,  should  know  the  truth  before  conclusions  are  reached 
which  may  involve  the  country  in  policies  that  may  require  large 
expenditures.  To  my  mind,  there  can  be  no  question  that  such  an 
agency  as  is  proposed  should  be  scientific  and  professional,  and  that 
whoever  is  in  charge  of  such  a  work  should  lose  his  partisan  identity, 
if  he  has  any,  and  should  devote  himself  intelligently  and  dispas- 
sionately to  the  consideration  of  the  subject  of  legislative  inquiry — 
to  a  careful  study  of  the  conditions  which  lie  back  of  each  measure. 

Q.  You  have  employed  experts  in  your  work  for  some  time  past; 
would  it  be  difficult  to  get  experts  in  this  work? — A.  This  question, 
perhaps,  might  be  considered  in  relation  to  the  next.  What  do  j^ou 
think  real  experts  could  be  secured  for  who  would  know  something 
about  this  business?  There  is  no  doubt  about  the  difficulty  of  get- 
ting the  right  kind  of  a  man  for  doing  the  kind  of  work  which  has 
been  described,  but  I  think  that  the  conclusion  can  be  just  as  certainly 
reached  that  whatever  the  cost  of  the  Government  Congress  could 
not  err  in  obtaining  the  right  kind  of  man  at  whatever  cost.  It  would 
be  an  expenditure  which  the  Government  and  the  people  could  not 
afford  not  to  make.  This  necessarily  raises  the  question  as  to  what 
is  the  kind  of  a  man  that  must  be  had  in  order  to  make  such  an 
agency  most  efficient.  Ambassador  Bryce  has  called  attention  to  the 
professional  character  of  the  British  agency — that  it  is  very  largely 
advisory  to  cabinet  ministers  as  leaders  of  the  majority  in  Parlia- 
ment, and  that  it  awaits  very  largely  the  request  of  a  minister  before 
opinion  is  expressed  or  cooperation  is  given.  I  understand  that  in 
this  country  we  have  developed  legislative  agencies  which  have  com- 
bined with  this  professional  aspect  another  work  that  to  my  mind 
is  of  quite  as  great  if  not  greater  importance.  I  refer  to  the  work 
which  looks  toward  the  prospective  needs  of  legislation  in  a  session 
about  to  convene.  In  a  country  so  large  as  this,  and  with  so  many 
varied  interests,  it  is  very  evident  that  no  man  can  render  an  offhand' 
opinion  about  any  question  of  public  policy  or  reach  scientific  con- 
clusions concerning  the  facts  involved  in  any  piece  of  legislation; 
nor  can  one  within  a  few  days,  or  for  that  matter  in  many  instance 
within  a  few  months,  accumulate  the  data  necessary  to  lay  the  foun- 
dation for  intelligent  legislative  action.  I  understand  that  in  Wis- 
consin especially  the  legislative  reference  bureau  has  gone  a  step 
further;  it  has  interested  itself  quite  as  much  in  what  are  the  big 
things  that  the  people  of  the  State  are  interested  in,  and  thereby 
attempts  to  foresee  what  it  is  that  the  legislator,  as  the  representa- 
tive of  the  people,  is  going  to  make  issue  on  when  the  legislature 
meets  as  a  body.  In  guiding  his  inquiries,  the  technical  head  of  this 
bureau  not  only  has  the  record  of  legislation  back  of  him  to  indicate 
what  the  questions  of  the  next  legislature  will  be,  but  he  also  inter- 
views members  of  the  legislature  (whether  they  be  old  members  or 
new  members)  to  ascertain  what  will  be  their  prospective  interests. 


30  CONGRESSIONAL.  REFERENCE   BUREAU. 

Mr.  TowNSEND.  Let  me  ask  you  a  question.  Dr.  Cleveland,  and  see 
if  I  undersand  you  there.  Take  a  concrete  example :  We  have  legis- 
lation proposed  here  to  create  what  is  usually  called  a  Children's 
Bureau. 

JVIr.  Cleveland.  Yes. 

Mr.  TowKSEND.  You  are  probably  familiar  with  it  in  general? 

Mr.  Cleaeland.  Yes. 

Mr.  TowNSEND.  That  is,  you  would  have  this  bureau  created  under 
this  act  capable  of  supplying  Members  of  Congi^ess  with  informa- 
tion with  respect  to  that  subject;  is  that  not  a  concrete  example  of 
what  ^'^ou  mean  ? 

Mr.  Cleveland.  True.  In  other  words,  let  us  assume  for  the  pur- 
poses of  this  very  inquiry  that  the  head  of  such  a  bureau  would  find 
that  a  number  of  Congressmen  would  be  interested  in  promoting  a 
measure  which  looked  toward  organizing  a  children's  bureau.  With- 
out waiting  until  some  one  had  submitted  a  memorandum  for  advice 
as  to  how  a  bill  should  be  drafted  in  order  to  fit  it  to  other  legisla- 
tion, and  properly  provide  for  the  administration  of  such  a  service; 
without  even  waiting  till  Congress  convened — during  the  summer 
months,  perhaps,  while  Congress  is  not  in  session — -such  a  bureau  head 
would  busy  himself  with  getting  together  the  information  which 
probably  would  be  called  for,  and  when  the  Member  came  to  Con- 
gress and  began  to  ask  him  about  the  data  of  the  subject  he  could 
malie  this  available  to  him.  He  would  have  a  ready-made  brief  that 
would  place  Congress  in  possession  of  facts  that  would  be  impossible 
if  he  waited  until  the  session  began  before  the  inquiry  was  begun. 

Mr.  Gardner.  Eight  there,  do  you  mean  to  say  that  Congress  has 
no  such  agency  now? 

Mr.  Cleveland.  I  do  not  know  of  such  an  agency. 

Mr.  Gardner.  T  supposed  that  Mr.  Griffin  was  in  the  habit  of  pre- 
paring bibliographical  compilations  of  all  the  references  which  were 
necessary  for  us  on  all  current  questions.    Am  I  not  correct? 

JNTr.  Putnam.  Bibliographical  statements.  I  think  Mr.  Cleveland 
meant  something  more  than  that. 

Mr.  Evans.  I  would  like  to  ask  Dr.  Cleveland  this  question:  Has 
he  thought  on  this  question  from  this  standpoint,  whether  it  would 
reduce  the  number  of  bills  offered  or  not  ? 

Mr.  Cleveland.  It  seems  to  me  it  would  materially  reduce  the 
number  of  bills  offered. 

Mr.  Evans.  How? 

Mr.  Cleveland.  And,  more  than  that,  it  would  reduce  the  amount 
of  time  of  Members  of  Congress  devoted  to  special  and  personal 
inquiry  and  questioning  about  facts. 

The  Chairman.  How  would  it  reduce  the  number  of  bills  ? 

Mr.  Cleveland.  It  would  provide  to  those  persons  who  are  inter- 
ested in  a  particular  matter  information  which  would  enable  them 
to  see  better  what  the  conditions  are,  what  the  facts  are,  and  should 
reduce  the  wide  range  of  guesses  which  are  incorporated  in  bills 
bearing  on  the  same  subject;  it  would  also  tend  to  prevent  useless 
and  harmful  legislation  based  on  wrong  theories. 

Mr.  Townsend.  And  possibly  a  Member  might  sometimes  err  in 
drawing  a  bill  to  remedy  a  condition  he  was  dissatisfied  with,  and 
if  he  should  go  to  this  bureau  he  should  find  there  was  a  statute  on 
the  law  already. 


CONGRESSIONAL  REFERENCE  BUREAU.  31 

Mr.  Cleveland.  Possibly;  and  if  not,  he  might  find  that  the  condi- 
tions were  somewhat  different.  He  might  also  find  that  what  he 
had  assumed  to  be  the  condition  from  personal  experience  was  purely 
local,  and  that  the  subject  was  not  a  matter  for  national  legislation. 

Mr.  Nelson.  For  a  number  of  years  I  indexed  in  the  session  laAvs  of 
Wisconsin  after  I  started  to  practice  law,  and  I  would  like  to  ask 
if  this  is  not  your  experience — at  least,  it  was  mine — that  the  multi- 
plicity of  legislation,  especially  in  the  State  legislatures,  is  due  in 
large  part  to  the  present,  hasty,  crude  method  of  preparation,  whereby 
lawmaking  becomes  a  matter  of  amendment  and  repeal  because  pre- 
vious legislation  was  not  grounded  on  fundamental  principles  ? 

Mr.  Cleveland.  I  might  cite  some  illustrations  in  your  own  law 
that  would  carry  the  point.  We  find  in  going  into  the  question 
of  reporting  on  subjects  of  business — what  we  might  call  financial 
"reporting" — laws  which  contain  prescriptions  requiring  depart- 
ments to  submit  financial  data  to  Congress,  that  there  are  some- 
thing like  90  such  laws  on  the  books  at  the  present  time,  requiring 
something  like  200  different  kinds  of  statements  to  be  made,  no  two 
of  which  run  along  the  same  line;  that  is,  reports  on  the  same  sub- 
ject, required  to  be  made  by  different  branches  or  divisions  of  the 
service,  are  so  far  different  in  character  that  they  may  not  be  brought 
together  or  considered  in  relation.  One  properly  drawn  statute 
would  cover  all  this  in  a  much  better  way.  That  is  an  illustration  of 
what  might  happen  if  you  had  some  systematic  means  for  finding 
out  first  what  the  need  is,  then  what  the  law  is;  the  remedy  might 
be  repeal  of  all  existing  miscellaneous  statutes  and  the  passing  of 
another  law  which  would  enable  you  to  get  a  comprehensive  view 
of  the  financial  situation,  thus  making  unnecessary  new  special  laws 
at  every  session. 

Mr.  Nelson.  May  I  ask  a  question? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Nelson.  Just  to  bring  out  that  point,  because  it  is  very  im- 
portant :  Of  course,  we  do  not  want  a  bureau  that  will  multiply  laws 
needlessly,  but  is  it  not  your  experience  and  belief,  Mr.  Cleveland, 
that  if  a  bill,  for  instance,  on  child  labor,  is  scientifically  prepared, 
all  the  facts  are  gathered  and  the  best  possible  bill  prepared,  that 
will  eliminate  largely  further  legislation  in  that  line  ? 

Mr.  Cleveland.  True. 

Mr.  Nelson.  And  that  consequently  the  multiplicity  of  law  will 
decrease  in  State  and  national  legislatures.  Do  you  not  think  that 
is  true? 

Mr.  Cleveland.  I  do. 

Returning  to  the  point,  if  we  are  to  concede  that  we  will  not  only 
have  at  the  head  of  such  a  bureau  a  man  who  is  competent  to  think 
in  terms  of  law  and  give  professional  advice  to  legislators  with  re- 
spect to  existing  law,  but  also  one  who  sees  in  a  large  way  the 
problem  of  Government — one  who  appreciates  its  purpose  and  its 
bearing  and  who  comprehends  the  needs  of  Congressmen,  who  are  to 
represent  these  interests  in  different  districts,  and  who  will  come  for- 
ward with  measures — it  goes  without  saying,  that  we  must  have  a 
pretty  large-calibered  man,  a  man  difficult  to  find.  Moreover,  it 
means  that  he  must  have  a  corps  of  experts  that  are  competent  to 
support  his  effort;  and,  therefore,  one  can  not  very  well  guess  what 
in  the  competition  for  brains  of  this  kind  it  might  cost.     I  would 


32  CONGBESSIONAL  REFERENCE   BUREAU. 

say  it  would  be  a  mistake  to  think  of  less  than  $10,000  a  j^ear,  and 
that  it  would  be  money  well  spent  whatever  the  cost. 

Q.  If  an  expert  body  of  this  sort  existed  for  the  gathering  of 
legislation  and  legislative  material,  and  possibly  we  had  another 
expert  body  here  for  general  research  into  admmistration,  do  you 
think  that  it  would  be  an  economical  thing  for  the  Government — that 
is,  going  over  a  period  of  5  or  10  years,  or  probably  more? — A.  I 
think  that  there  can  be  only  one  answer  to  this  question — yes;  the 
reasons  have  been  already,  in  a  meansure,  stated. 

Further,  it  must  be  said,  speaking  of  the  possible  economy,  that 
the  possible  economies  as  we  view  the  situation  here  lie :  First,, 
in  the  character  of  organization  Congress  provided,  which  must 
be  determined  by  the  legislature;  second,  in  the  character  of  equip- 
ment provided,  which,  again,  is  in  large  measure  a  matter  for  legis- 
lative consideration ;  third,  in  the  efficiency  of  the  personnel,  which^ 
in  turn,  depends  upon  the  conditions  under  which  employees  must 
work,  again  very  largely  a  matter  of  legislation;  fourth,  in  the 
technical  processes  employed  in  the  conduct  of  the  business,  for 
which,  in  large  measure,  the  executive  is  responsible ;  fifth,  the  economy 
with  which  equipment  and  personnel  are  used,  very  largely  a  matter 
of  executive  responsibility;  sixth,  the  economy  and  efficiency  with 
which  contracts  and  purchases  are  made,  again  largely  a  matter  of 
executive  responsibility.  In  these  we  have  some  of  the  large  aspects 
of  legislative  and  executive  discretion.  But  executive  discretion  is 
always  limited;  it  is  necessary  constantly  to  adapt  those  processes 
and  the  use  made  of  properties  and  personnel  to  requirements  of 
law,  in  many  instances  making  it  impossible  to  employ  technical 
processes  or  use  equipment  and  personnel  in  a  manner  which  would 
make  for  economy  and  efficiency,  because  of  some  statute  in  the  way. 
For  example,  the  illustration  I  just  gave  you,  the  prescriptions  given 
on  the  keeping  of  accounts.  You  can  not  imagine  any  situation  that 
would  be  more  wasteful  in  the  keeping  of  accounts  than  to  compel  the 
administration  to  try  to  comply  with  90  different  statutes  on  the 
subject  of  the  data  to  be  reported,  many  of  these  laws  conflicting  in 
their  classification  and  requirements.  So  we  may  take  up  questions 
of  purchase,  questions  of  the  utilization  of  property — a  great  many 
questions  that  are  closely  related  to  the  subject  of  the  technique  of 
business.  Each  of  these  is  necessarily  dependent  on  the  kind  of  law 
which  lies  back  of  the  creation  of  the  service  or  Avhich  is  promulgated 
for  the  regulation  of  the  service.  It  seems  to  me,  therefore,  in  answer 
to  this  last  question,  that  if  we  were  to  go  over  a  period  of  5  or  10 
years,  were  to  look  forward  to  the  possible  economy  which  may  be 
realized  by  careful,  systematic  attention  given  on  the  one  side  to 
legislation  and  on  the  other  side  to  administration,  that  this  is  the 
only  solution :  A  legislative  body  can  not  take  into  consideration  the 
details  of  administration ;  an  administrative  bod}^  can  not  spend  the 
time  nor  can  it  have  before  it  the  subjects  of  public  policy  which 
legislators  must  consider  before  enactment  of  laws.  These  two 
groups  ought  to  be  provided  with  two  technical  or  scientific  and 
professional  agencies,  which  are  at  the  service  of  these  two  distinct 
constitutional  branches  of  the  Government;  furthermore,  in  my 
opinion,  there  ought  to  be  another  scientific  or  professional  group 
placed  back  of  your  courts,  in  order  that  the  rules  of  equity  and  legal 
procedure  and  the  other  questions  which  do  not  depend  on  evidence 


CONGEESSIONAL   REFERENCE    BUREAU.  33 

taken  in  course  of  a  trial  may  be  considered  scientifically.  To  state 
the  view  in  a  summary  form,  in  my  opinion  the  Government  should 
have  back  of  each  one  of  its  three  branches  a  scientific  agency  which 
would  be  nonpartisan  and  which  would  provide  those  persons  who 
are  responsible  for  the  duties  of  the  office  the  information  needed  for 
the  most  intelligent  discharge  of  their  responsibilities ;  that  with  the 
many  and  increasing  intricate  questions  presented  this  is  the  only 
solution  which  comports  with  the  attainments  of  highest  efficiency. 

The  Chairman.  What  do  ^'ou  mean  by  having  something  back  of 
the  courts? 

Mr.  Clevelaxd.  I  mean  a  scientific  agency. 

The  Chaiioian.  You  mean  to  review  their  decisions? 

Mr.  Cleveland.  Not  at  all:  no  more  than  would  this  agency  review 
the  decisions  of  the  legislature;  but  to  prepare  for  them  such  data 
that  they  might  need  to  promulgate  better  rules  of  procedure  and 
provide  for  themselves  a  practice  which  would  tend  toward  the 
facilitating  of  their  business.  Also  to  look  into  questions  which  may 
be  entirely  outside  of  the  evidence  submitted,  but  which  are  neces- 
sary to  the  consideration  of  a  cause  raising  great  constitutional  ques- 
tions that  come  up  for  interpretation,  the  proper  determination  of 
which,  in  many  instances,  requires  a  dispassionate,  impartial  inquiry 
collateral  to  the  briefs  of  attorneys  submitted  for  the  information  of 
the  court. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  not  think  that  the  courts  would  resent  the 
suggestion  that  they  are  not  better  qualified  to  do  that  for  them- 
selves ? 

Mr.  Cleveland.  I  do  not  think  so,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  The  Supreme  Court,  for  example,  wants  to  fix  its 
own  rules  of  procedure. 

Mr.  Cleveland.  The  Supreme  Court  is  at  work  on  that  subject 
now,  and  I  think  they  have  also  asked  for  special  appropriation  for 
that  purpose.  Mr.  W.  J.  Hughes,  by  special  assignment,  is  devoting 
practically  all  of  his  time  to  that  work. 

The  Chairman.  But  he  is  a  part  of  the  court. 

INIr.  Cleveland.  But  he  is  specially  detailed  to  do  this  expert  work 
which  members  of  the  court  could  not  hope  to  find  time  for. 

Mr.  Evans.  That  is  very  interesting.  We  would  like  to  have  in- 
formation upon  it.    What  is  it  the  Supreme  Court  does? 

Mr.  Cleveland.  I  am  not  here  to  argue  or  present  a  brief  on  the 
subject ;  I  am  responding  to  a  request  for  an  opinion  with  respect  to 
the  need  for  scientific  agencies  in  Government  as  an  aid  to  officers 
responsible  for  the  work  of  each  branch.  The  opinion  given  is  not  a 
new  idea.  It  is  the  German  idea,  of  having  a  scientific  staff  back  of 
the  line ;  and  to  my  mind  it  is  the  one  thing  that  has  made  Germany 
more  proficient  than  any  other  nation  in  its  governmental  processes. 

Mr.  Evans.  Administration  of  justice  and  scientific  fortification 
back — are  you  not  mixing  your  figures  ? 

Mr.  Cleveland.  I  think  not.  I  think  that  there  are  scientific  as- 
pects to  the  administration  of  courts. 

jNIr.  Evans.  Your  idea  is  that  courts  are  not  doing  their  duty, 
which  seems  to  have  a  little  popularity  just  now  in  some  quarters, 
and  you  attempt  to  assist  them  by  creating  a  scientific  board  of  some 
kind  back  of  them? 

40435—12 3 


34  CONGRESSIONAL   REFERENCE    BUREAU. 

Mr.  Cleveland.  Not  for  the  consideration  of  evidence  in  cases. 

Mr.  Evans.  I  may  be  mistaken,  but  I  understood  you  to  say  that. 

Mr.  Clevel.\nd.  Simply  in  the  matter  of  procedure  and  the  col- 
lateral data  needed  by  the  court  in  the  administration  of  justice — the 
application  and  interpretation  of  laws  which  are  the  expression  of 
the  policy-determining  body,  or  which  have  been  evolved  as  a  part  of 
the  institutional  life  of  the  people. 

Mr.  Evans.  I  understood  you  to  say  "equity."  Let  me  laiow 
where  you  are  going  to  divide  the  jurisdiction  between  the  courts 
and  the  scientific  rules  back  of  them. 

Mr.  Cleveland.  I  simply  said  "  rules  of  equity  procedure."  I  did 
not  intend  to  suggest  we  would  have  a  scientific  agency  for  weighing 
the  evidence  or  the  determination  of  causes.  We  have  a  judicial 
body  to  do  that. 

Mr.  TowNSEND.  That  has  been  suggested  by  even  a  greater  person 
recently. 

Mr.  Cleveland.  I  am  not  arguing  the  point  which  you  have  in 
mind,  Mr.  Townsend. 

Mr.  Townsend.  Precisely,  what  do  you  mean?  Now,  take  the 
Supreme  Court 

Mr.  Cleveland.  Perhaps  we  are  getting  sidetracked  here. 

The  Chairman.  Precisely,  what  do  you  mean  by  having  something 
back  of  the  Supreme  Court  to  aid  it  to  what  I  presume  a  better  ad- 
ministration of  law  ? 

Mr.  Cle^teland.  The  same  sort  of  an  agency  or  collateral  staff  that 
they  are  now  utilizing  for  a  collection  of  data  and  the  submission  of 
recommendations  pertaining  to  the  present  equity  procedure. 

The  Chairman.  Are  they  doing  anything  more  than  endeavoring 
to  formulate  rules  of  procedure  to  facilitate  business  ? 

Mr.  Cleveland.  That  is  just  the  point ;  their  inquiry  is  very  much 
facilitated  by  detailing  men  to  give  scientific  consideration  of  the  sub- 
ject. Men  who  are  busy  with  cases  every  day  in  the  week  can  not 
very  well  devote  themselves  to  the  consideration  of  the  practices  and 
rules  in  a  hundred  different  courts  throughout  the  United  States 
under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Department  of  Justice;  each  court 
builds  up  its  own  rules;  the  result  is  a  medley  instead  of  a  scientific 
result.  With  respect  to  the  administration  of  legislation,  it  would 
be  the  same  thing  as  the  development  of  an  administrative  procedure 
or  code  governing  the  conduct  of  nonjudicial  business.  There  is  the 
same  need  for  developing  an  administrative  procedure  for  the  con- 
duct of  business  on  the  executive  side.  This  would  be  simply  an- 
other form  of  administrative  code. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  finished.  Doctor? 

Mr.  Cleveland.  I  have. 

The  Chairman.  Gentlemen,  I  think,  perhaps,  it  will  be  well  for 
us  to  take  an  adjournment  for  luncheon  now.  Mr.  Nelson  has  had 
to  go  away.  Mr.  Putnam,  have  you  any  idea  which  witnesses  wish 
to  be  heard  first? 

Mr.  Putnam.  Some  of  these  gentlemen  from  a  distance.  Mr. 
McCarthy  is  here  and  Dean  Lewis,  of  Philadelphia,  and  others. 

Mr.  Lewis.  I  have  to  go  away.     I  can  stay  until  4  o'clock. 

The  Chairman.  Would  a  quarter  past  2  suit  you  ? 

Mr.  Lewis.  Entirely. 


CONGRESSIONAL  REFERENCE   BUREAU.  35 

The  Chairman.  We  will  now  adjourn  until  quarter  past  2  and 
then  resume  the  sitting. 

Thereupon,  at  12.30  o'clock  p.  m.,  the  committee  took  a  recess  until 
2.15  o'clock  this  afternoon. 

AFTER  RECESS, 

The  committee  met  at  2.15  p.  m. 

Present:  Eepresentatives  Slayden  (chairman),  Townsend,  Evans, 
Gardner,  and  Pickett. 

STATEMENT   OF  DR.   WILLIAM  DRAPER  LEWIS,  DEAN   OF  THE 
PENNSYLVANIA  LAW  SCHOOL. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Nelson,  who  is  to  be  heard  first  this  after- 
noon? 

Mr.  Nelson.  Dean  Lewis,  of  the  Pennsylvania  Law  School. 

The  Chairman.  All  right.  Dr.  Lewis,  we  will  be  glad  to  hear  from 
you.     We  are  ready  to  be  convinced. 

Dr.  Lewis.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  feel  that  the  issue  before  your  com- 
mittee is  a  very  practical  one.  It  is,  as  I  understand  it,  whether 
this  proposed  bureau  will  be  of  any  practical  assistance  to  Members 
of  Congress.  ^Vhile  it  may  be  of  assistance  to  other  persons,  the 
real  question  is  whether  it  is  going  to  be  of  assistance  to  Congress. 

The  position  which  the  dean  of  the  modern  law  school  finds  him- 
self in  very  often  is  the  exact  position  which  you  gentlemen,  as  mem- 
bers of  committees  of  Congress,  are  often  in.  Not  a  month  goes  by 
but  some  philanthropic  organization,  or  some  group  of  individuals 
who  wish  to  present  to  the  next  State  legislature  in  their  respective 
States  a  statute  on  some  subject,  comes  to  me  as  dean  of  the  law 
school  of  the  State  and  asks  me  to  prepare  for  them  that  statute  or 
suggest  some  one  who  can  do  so.  In  other  words,  the  dean  of  a 
modern  law  school  is  brought,  if  he  does  any  public  work  at  all — ■ 
and  from  my  own  point  of  view  he  ought  to  do  a  certain  amount 
of  public  work — in  the  position  of  having  to  prepare  acts  in  which 
he  may  not  be  personally  interested.  He  is  in  the  position  of  having 
to  draft  acts  to  present  to  the  legislature.  I  think  that  perhaps  the 
only  useful  thing  I  can  do  for  you,  sir,  is  to  tell  of  the  very  great 
assistance  which  I  have  received  from  an  organization  incorporated 
under  the  laws  of  New  York,  which  has  been  in  active  operation 
for  about  a  year — that  is,  the  Legislative  Drafting  Association.  This 
association  was  founded  some  two  years  ago  b}^  some  persons  who 
were  interested  in  scientific  legislation.  They  organized  and  placed 
in  the  hands  of  trustees,  of  which  I  now  happen  to  be  one,  some 
$20,000  a  year,  to  be  expended  in  improving  the  scientific  drafting  of 
legislation  in  the  United  States. 

The  Chairman.  Is  it  purely  nonofficial? 

Dr.  Lewis.  It  is  purely  nonofficial.  They  are  private  funds.  We 
are  merely  trustees. 

Mr.  Nelson.  Is  that  connected  with  Columbia  University  in  some 
way  ? 

Dr.  Lewis.  It  is,  in  part,  the  fund  supports  the  Legislative  Draft- 
ing Research  Fund  of  Columbia  University.     The  trustees  should 


36  CONGRESSIONAL  REFERENCE   BUREAU. 

control  the  fund  I  have  mentioned  for  the  purpose  of  improving 
legishition  in  the  United  States,  and  have  the  right  to  support  work 
done  in  a  university.  My  personal  experience,  prior  to  the  forma- 
tion of  the  Legislative  Drafting  Association  with  tlie  various  bills 
for  philanthropic  organizations,  and  in  work  for  the  commercial 
law  committee  of  the  Conference  on  Uniform  State  Laws— -Avith 
the  work  of  which  you  gentlemen  are  familiar — convinced  me  that 
the  right  way  to  use  that  monej'  to  the  best  advantage  was  to  divide 
the  various  fields  of  law  and,  to  take  the  branch  in  which  I  per- 
sonally am  especially  interested,  the  branch  of  commercial  law,  and 
put  that  under  the  general  direction  of  some  one  person.  As  I  was 
more  familiar  with  that  branch,  I  did  it  myself.  I  have  under  me 
two  men  now  who  are  devoting  their  entire  time  to  gathering  the 
information  and  to  helping  me  to  express  the  law  in  statutory  form. 
The  detail  is  about  as  follows :  The  Conference  on  Uniform  State 
Laws,  through  their  commercial  committee,  ask  the  Drafting  Asso- 
ciation, through  me,  to  prepare  a  report  on  statute  upon — I  will  use 
an  actual  illustration —  a  proposed  uniform  act  for  the  incorpora- 
tion of  smaller  business  associations,  an  act  between  common-law 
partnerships  on  one  side  and  cori^orations  on  the  other.  Now, 
from  my  prior  experience  of  work  for  that  committee,  and  for  the 
legislature  of  Pennsylvania,  I  would  have  refused  to  undertake  that 
work  for  them  unless  this  Drafting  Association  had  been  in  existence. 
With  that  association  in  existence,  I  can  turn  to  m}'  two  assistants 
and  say  to  them :  "  I  want  this  and  that  information."  They  gather 
the  information,  along  the  lines  I  indicate,  while  I  am  doing  some- 
thing else. 

I  may  use  but  a  very  small  portion  of  what  they  prepare.  I 
discuss  the  material  with  them,  and  they  prepare  a  first  rough  draft 
on  memoranda  which  I  give  them.  This  memoranda  is  the  result 
of  their  first  having  furnished  me  with  information,  duly  digested, 
as  to  what  has  been  done  in  foreign  countries,  and  what  is  the  exist- 
ing legislation  on  the  subject  of  the  proposed  act;  in  short,  to  carry 
out  the  original  illustration,  on  partnership  associations  and  joint- 
stock  companies  all  over  the  United  States. 

The  Chairman.  In  other  words,  your  purpose  was  to  be  a  legal 
entity  wdiich  would  be  able  to  conduct  private  business  without  the 
odium  attached  to  corporations? 

Dr.  Lewis.  I  think  that  is  correct.  I  prefer  to  put  it  in  this  way : 
The  idea  back  of  the  suggestion  of  the  commercial-law  committee 
of  the  conference  on  uniform  State  laws  which  led  them  to  employ 
me  and  the  association  to  do  this  preliminary  work  is  that  the  same 
sort  of  business  organization,  with  limited  liability,  should  be  pro- 
vided for  small  business  needs,  as  distinguished  from  one  needing 
large  capital  or  which  is  affected  with  a  public  interest. 

The  Chairman.  You  take  partnership  and  add  to  it  the  advantages 
of  a  corporation,  such  as  the  one  that  death  does  not  terminate  it  ? 

Dr.  Leavis.  Yes.  Not  all  of  the  information  is  used  in  the  prep- 
aration of  the  rough  draft  which  will  be  submitted  to  me,  but  I 
want  to  say  this,  that  I  have  now  reached  a  point  in  personal  ex- 
perience where  I  do  not  undertake  for  a  legislative  committee  or 
for  any  committee,  such  as  the  commercial-law  committee  of  the  con- 
ference on  uniform  State  laws,  the  preparation  of  a  draft  of  an  act 
to  submit  to  them  for  their  discussion,  whether  they  give  me  a 


CONGRESSIONAL,  REFERENCE   BUREAU.  37 

general  line  on  which  that  act  should  be  drawn  or  not,  unless  I  am 
put  in  the  position  of  being  able  to  turn  to  some  such  assistance  as 
I  have  in  connection  with  the  act  I  mention  from  the  Legislative 
Drafting  Association. 

Now,  gentlemen,  of  course  you  can  judge  from  your  own  personal 
experience  very  much  better  than  I  can  whether  my  position  when, 
for  instance,  I  am  asked  by  a  group  of  philanthropists  who  wish  to 
establish  a  public  institution,  such  as  a  reformatory  for  drunkards, 
to  draft  an  act  on  the  subject,  is  similar  to  the  position  which  one  of 
you  may  find  yourself  in  when  some  of  your  constituents  ask  you 
to  prepare  such  an  act,  and  whether  it  would  be  of  any  advantage 
to  you  to  be  able,  as  a  matter  of  right,  to  turn  to  a  bureau  which 
would,  first,  on  one  side,  give  you  the  information — have  a  man  in 
that  bureau  told  to  get  the  information  out  for  you  and  not  merely 
hand  you  a  lot  of  books  and  say,  "You  can  find  it  in  there,"  but 
digest  that  information ;  and,  second,  after  you  had  made  up  your 
mind  what  the  general  feature  of  that  legislation  should  be,  to  pre- 
pare for  your  inspection  and  use,  in  so  far  as  you  thought  it  valu- 
able, a  rough  draft  of  an  act. 

So  far  as  my  observation  goes  in  preparing  acts  for  submission  to 
committees  of  legislatures  or  committees  of  bar  associations  or  com- 
mittees of  philanthropists  or  reformers  of  one  kind  and  another  that 
may  turn  to  a  law  school  to  help  them  out  in  the  drafting  of  legis- 
lation, I  find  that  the  assistance  of  a  bureau  such  as  the  Legislative 
Drafting  Bureau  is  of  very  great  advantage.  This  is  simply  from  a 
limited  personal  experience,  but  I  am  quite  certain  that  if  you  are 
as  individuals  put  in  a  similar  position  as  Members  of  Congress,  as 
I  understand  you  very  often  are,  you  would  find  great  assistance  from 
this  bureau,  if  it  were  organized  on  a  scale  to  suit  the  broad  problems 
that  confront  you. 

I  appreciate  that  the  collection  of  a  vast  amount  of  information 
on  law  all  over  the  LTnited  States  and  its  indexing  and  having  it 
ready  for  use  is  going  to  be  of  great  good,  but  I  beg  to  submit  that, 
while  the  reference  bureau  established  by  this  bill  will  be  a  good 
thing,  it  will  only  be  so  wdien  the  material  gathered  is  available  for 
the  actual  thing  for  which  the  material  is  consulted — the  criticism  of 
legislation  proposed  by  others  or  the  expression  of  your  own  ideas  in 
statutory  form. 

The  Chairman.  Your  idea  is  that  information  now  collected  by 
the  individual  Members  of  Congress  would  not  only  be  collected  but 
it  would  be  digested  for  him  to  save  him  the  trouble 

Mr.  Evans.  In  tabloid  form. 

Dr.  Lewis.  Yes;  in  tabloid  form;  and  that,  Mr.  Chairman,  could 
only  be  done  with  real  use  by  having  at  the  head  of  the  bureau  a 
man  who  has  more  than  a  mere  academic  interest  in  collecting  a 
great  mass  of  material,  but  a  man  of  vision,  who  will  look  ahead 
and  see  what  is  likely  to  be  the  line  of  information  along  which  the 
Members  of  Congress  will  need  assistance — on  which  they  will  re- 
ceive t-equests  from  their  constituents  and  back  of  which  there  is 
some  public  discussion^ — and  be  prepared  when  Congress  convenes  to 
take  the  information  already  prepared  on  that  subject  and  hand  it 
out  to  the  Members  of  Congress,  and  then,  when  Members  of  Con- 
gress or  a  committee  say  that  they  wish  a  bill  on  that  subject,  and 
wish  it  drawn  along  certain  definite  lines,  there  shall  be  in  existence 


38  CONGRESSIONAL  REFERENCE   BUREAU. 

a  man  who  is  a  trained  lawyer  and  a  permanent  employee  of  the 
bureau,  who  will  give  them  assistance  by  supplying  to  them,  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  memoranda  submitted,  a  draft  of  the  statute. 
Not  unless  that  last  thing  is  done  will  there  be  great  use  in  the  mere 
collection  of  the  material  itself. 

If,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  made  that  point  clear 

Mr.  Evans.  The  question  seems  to  be  entirely  practical.  I  do  not 
think  the  theory  of  the  thing  meets  any  opposition.  How  do  you 
get  these  men  you  speak  of? 

Dr.  Lewis.  1  can  answer  that.  In  the  first  place,  of  course,  as  dean 
of  a  law  school  I  have  a  knowledge  of  those  who  are  men  of  real 
ability.  I  can  offer  them  a  living  salary,  which,  to  be  concrete,  is, 
m  Philadelphia,  for  a  single  man,  about  $900  to  $1,000.  I  have  no 
trouble  in  securing  for  two  or  three  years  a  man  who  will  be  very 
glad  to  work  under  me,  not  only  as  a  graduate  student  in  the  law 
school,  but  as  an  employee  of  the  Legislative  Drafting  Association. 

Mr.  Evans.  Do  you  not  suppose  that  a  man  wdio  has  had  any  kind 
of  practice  at  the  bar  for,  say,  20  or  25  years  needs  the  assistance  of 
a  $900-a-year  man  like  that? 

Dr.  Lewis.  Yes,  sir ;  I  do. 

Mr.  Evans.  As  a  stenographer  or  clerk,  but  not  as  a  lawyer  ? 

Dr.  Lewis.  Perhaps  I  can  make  myself  clear  on  that.  It  is  like 
this:  I  have  been  at  the  bar  for  the  time  you  mention  and  I  have 
been  in  the  business,  more  or  less,  of  preparing  acts.  I  need,  for 
any  serious  piece  of  work,  the  assistance  of  a  thoroughly  good  man. 

Mr.  Evans.  Can  you  get  one  for  $900  ? 

Dr.  Lewis.  I  would  a  great  deal  rather  have  a  man  who  has  just 
come  out  of  one  of  the  great  law  schools  of  the  country,  who  had 
stood  practically  at  the  head  of  his  class  in  competition  with  a  hun- 
dred men  and  who  was  entirely  willing,  while  using  his  brain,  to  do 
exactly  as  I  told  him,  than  I  would  to  have  an  older  man  working 
under  me  who  would  rather  do  his  way  than  mine. 

Mr.  Townsend.  I  think  it  would  be  false  to  have  this  $900-a-year 
man  reduce  the  law  to  tabloid  form,  and  the  Congressman  swallow 
it.  I  say  that  advisedly,  because  it  is  the  objection  we  have  got 
to  meet  on  the  floor  of  the  House.  Most  of  these  legislative  schemes 
do  not  recognize  its  importance.  Some  one  will  say,  "  You  are  going 
to  have  congressional  digesters."  I  am  just  weeding  out  this  view 
if  it  is  to  be  met.    You  will  never  meet  it  with  a  $900  man. 

Dr.  Lewis.  Perhaps  we  are  talking  to  different  ends 

Mr.  Townsend.  I  ask  a  practical  question.  What  do  you  pay 
the  men  you  use  ? 

Dr.  Lewis.  About  a  thousand  dollars,  but  I  never  get  an  old  man. 

The  Chairman.  Do  I  understand  you  to  say.  Dean,  that  you  are 
able  to  get  first-class  men  because  you  take  in  men  who  have  just 
graduated — men  who  would  prefer  to  pursue  their  studies  further 
in  some  set  line — and  they  do  it  at  this  low  salary  with  that  idea? 

Dr.  Lewis.  Yes,  sir.  The  head  of  the  bill-drafting  bureau  is  a 
different  proposition ;  but  his  actual  assistants  in  that  bureau  would, 
it  seems  to  me,  be  men  who  wished  to  make  a  specialty  of  this  or 
that  subject.  There  is  a  difference  between  my  position  when  work- 
ing, for  instance,  for  the  committee  on  commercial  law  of  the 
conference  on  uniform  State  laws  and  the  head  of  this  proposed 
bureau.      The    committee    on    commercial   law.   of   the   conference, 


CONGEESSION.VL   REFERENCE  BUREAU.  39 

say:  "We  want  a  certain  act;  will  you  draft  it?  "  With  practically 
no  suggestion  to  me  or  any  other  person  they  may  select  they  turn 
over  the  entire  business  of  drafting  the  first  draft  of  that  act  to 
their  draftsman.  Of  course,  they  may,  and  do,  change  the  draft 
after  it  is  submitted.  Now.  the  head  of  the  bureau,  proposed  in  this 
act,  must  take  a  wholly  different  position.  He  must  be  a  man  of 
skill  and  experience,  but  he  must  not  be  a  man  who  is  expected  to 
initiate  ideas.  You  will,  as  Members  of  Congress,  bring  to  him  your 
ideas  as  to  what  should  go  in  a  bill.  He,  having  requests  from  many 
Members  of  Congress,  can  not  devote  his  whole  time  to  that  particu- 
lar bill,  and  one  of  his  assistants  (this  is  the  $1,000  man  we  are  talk- 
ing about)  draws  up  under  his  direction  a  first  draft.  I  do  not  say 
you  could  get  an  efficient  assistant  here  for  a  thousand  dollars. 

Mr.  TowNSEND.  On  that  Brother  Evans  and  T  understand  you  dif- 
ferently, I  think.  Xow.  for  instance,  section  3  of  the  bill  speaks  of 
three  different  classes  of  assistants  to  the  chief  of  the  bureau : 

That  there  shall  be  in  such  biu'eau  such  legal,  technical,  and  clerical  assist- 
ants as,  etc. 

I  understand  Dr.  Lewis  to  refer  now  to  clerical  assistants — that  is, 
bright  young  lawyers  who  can  render  competent  clerical  assistance. 
You  are  not  referring  now  to  either  legal  or  techincal  aids  of  the 
bureau,  are  you  Doctor  ( 

Mr.  EvAXS.  He  referred  to  the  men  he  called  in  for  drafting  this 
partnership  bill. 

The  Chairman.  Dr.  Lewis,  you  heard  Mr.  Bryce's  address  this 
morning.  He  put  stress  on  the  wisdom  and  importance  of  the  gen- 
tleman he  called  parliamentary  counsel,  a  man  of  high  legal  train- 
ing. Xow.  the  kind  of  work  you  anticipate — that  you  will  expect 
from  these  young  men — is  not  the  sort  of  work  that  a  parliamentary 
counsel  of  that  standing  would  do,  is  it  ? 

Dr.  Lewis.  The  parliamentary  counsel  is  the  head  of  the  bill- 
drafting  bureau  in  your  bill. 

The  Chairman.  Not  according  to  Mr.  Bryce — the  British  part  of  it. 

Dr.  Lewis.  He  is  never  the  man  who  takes  any  initiative.  He 
draws  bills  for  one  Government  and  then  for  the  opposition  Govern- 
ment, and.  one  year,  Avill  be  drawing  a  bill  to  accomplish  certain 
results  and  next  year  drawing  a  bill  to  undo  it.  In  other  words, 
he  always  does  what  the  committee  tells  him  to  do.  That  seems  to  be 
the  real  position  of  that  head,  if  he  is  to  be  of  any  use.  Mr,  Bryce 
suggested  he  was  assisted  by  seven  persons.  I  assume  that  those  im- 
mediately around  him  are  not  thousand-dollar-a-year  men.  I  think 
they  are  lawyers  of  skill  and  ability.  Also,  in  that  bureau  are  the 
class  of  minor  assistants  which  in  your  bill  here  are  designated  as 
clerks. 

Mr.  ToAVNSENi).  Not  as  legal  or  technical  assistants. 

Mr.  Eaans.  As  I  understand  your  illustration,  you  secure  some 
young  graduates  in  your  law  school  for  a  year  or  two.  You  do  not 
sugsjest  Ave  could  get  that  kind  for  any  such  sum.  do  you? 

Dr.  Lewis.  I  will  answer  your  question.  As  a  drafter  of  an  act  for 
a  committee  of  the  conference  on  uniform  State  laws.  I  am  in  the 
position  of  the  head  of  that  bill-drafting  bureau  myself,  but  T  am 
also  something  more  than  he  would  be,  therefore  the  parallel  is  not 
complete.    There  is  a  difference,  but  in  so  far  as  the  head  of  that  bill- 


40  CONGRESSIONAL   KEFEiiEXCJi    BUREAU. 

drafting  bui-eau  would  be  a  man  who  did  Avhat  I  should  do  if  the 
committee  on  commercial  law  I  am  doing  work  for  directed  me  to 
prepare  a  bill  and  put  in  certain  features,  he  is  like  me  in  that  he 
would  do  that  without  question.  In  the  actual  drafting-  I  get  prac- 
tical assistance  from  a  corps  of  assistants  under  me.  1  do  not  think 
we  should  push  the  parallel  further  than  that. 

Mr.  Gakdnek.  You  say  you  prefer  the  younger  men  Ijecause  the 
older  ones  would  be  unlikely  to  meet  with  your  ideas  \ 

Dr.  Leavis.  I  mean  this  by  that :  That  if  you  get  a  law  ver  and  want 
him  to  do  special  work  for  you,  you  want  a  num  who  is  going  to 
devote  his  whole  time  to  what  you  want  done,  and  you  are  usually 
in  this  position:  You  will  have  applications  from  older  men  who 
have  had  some  practice  before  the  ,bar  and  are  not  getting  along 
very  well,  and  you  will  have  applications  from  younger  men  with  a 
greater  native  ability. 

Mr.  Gardner.  I  understood  you  to  say  that  one  of  the  reasons 
why  the  older  men  would  not  fit  in  was  because  they  would  not  do 
things  your  way. 

Dr.  Lewis.  Of  course,  that  is  my  view. 

Mr.  Gardner.  In  that  respect,  do  you  not  think  that  Congressmen 
would  find  the  same  fault  in  the  head  of  the  bill-drafting  bureau  as 
that  head  would  find  in  some  of  his  older  assistants '. 

Dr.  Leavis.  That  will  be  true  if  you  select  the  wrong  kind  of  man, 
and  the  quicker  such  a  man  would  be  dismissed  the  better.  I  can  not 
imagine  a  man  holding  such  a  position  feeling  for  a  moment  that 
he  was  the  originator  of  legislation. 

Mr.  Gardner.  I  was  wondering  if  that  was  not  human  nature. 

Dr.  Lewis.  Take  the  case  which  the  ambassador,  Mr.  Bryce, 
quotes 

Mr.  Gardner.  Suppose  this  force  at  the  library  were  asked  to 
di'aft  a  bill  repealing  a  laAv — if  there  were  such  a  laAv — for  the  re- 
tirement of  civil-service  employees,  do  you  think  Congress  w^ould 
get  purely  sympathetic  work  out  of  them? 

The  Chairman.  What  was  that  question,  sir? 

Mr.  Gardner.  I  was  wondering  if  Congress  would  g<^i  purely  sym- 
pathetic work  out  of  the  bill-drafting  force,  if  it  were  required  to 
collect  data  violently  opposed  to  its  own  interests. 

Dr.  Lewis.  Dr.  McCarthy  can  tell  you  better  than  I  can.  No  bill 
would  be  drafted  by  the  drafting  section — simply  by  Members  of 
Congress  or  the  committees  saying  to  the  bill-drafting  section : 
"  Draft  a  bill  on  that  subject."  It  would  always  be  required  that  the 
features  which  are  desired  in  the  bill  be  written  out  by  the  committee 
or  person  who  desires  the  drafting  bureau  to  draft  the  bill,  and  the 
memorandum  would  have  to  be  signed  by  a  Member ;  in  other  words, 
the  committee  would  draw  the  skeleton,  based  on  the  supposition 
that  the  actual  work  of  the  bureau  is  that  it  works  only  as  it  is 
told  to  work.  You  can  guard  against  the  bureau  taking  the  initia- 
tiA-e  simply  by  requiring  the  Congressmen  to  indicate  Aery  clearly 
more  than  the  general  nature  of  the  bill.  He  should  be  required  to 
indicate  the  kind  of  a  bill  and  the  essential  provisions  of  the  bill.  All 
that  the  draftsman  does  is  to  saA^e  the  rather  weary  work,  from  my 
personal  experience,  of  getting  the  first  draft  in  discussable  shape. 

The  Chairman.  Does  that  Avork  come  from  the  o-athering  of 
the  data — the  editing  and  preparatic  ii  of  it — or  the  mechanical  labor 


CONGRESSIONAL   KEFERENCE   BUREAU.  41 

of  drafting  the  bill?  You  laj^  so  much  stress  on  the  drafting  of  bills 
that  the  question  has  come  to  my  mind,  "Which  is  more  im[)ortanl, 
the  gathering,  editing,  and  supplying  data  and  information  about 
other  Governments  and  what  they  have  done  in  this  or  tliat  line,  or 
the  drafting  of  the  bill  to  embody  the  ideas  of  the  proponement  of 
the  measure  ? 

Dr.  Lewis.  It  is  like  the  three  dimensions  of  space.  Which  is  the 
most  important?  In  one  sense,  the  question  can  not  be  answered. 
The  bureau  can  not  be  of  any  real  assistance  unless  it  supplies  the 
information — that  means  the  collection  of  material  and  digesting 
it — and  also  helps  on  the  drafting  side  from  the  memoranda.  In 
quality  of  work — if  that  is  the  meaning  of  j^our  question — it  is  the 
digesting  of  the  data  and,  after  the  memoranda  is  written  out,  the 
expression  of  what  is  required  in  good  statutory  form.  Now,  I  do 
think  that  back  of  your  question  there  is  a  matter  of  great  importance. 
What  is  the  type  of  man  to  be  at  the  head  of  the  bureau,  because 
imder  him  will  come  both  things — the  reference  bureau  and  the 
drafting  department.  If  I  was  in  the  position  of  the  Librarian  I 
should  lay  emphasis  on  a  man  of  legal  ability  and  a  man  Avho  would 
be  capable  of  directing  the  bill-drafting  bureau  primaril)\  In  other 
words,  frankly.  I  think  the  practical  thing  which  the  bureau  would 
do  to  help  Congress  is  to  help  in  the  preparation  of  the  legislation, 
and  that  legal  ability  is  vital  to  the  work;  and,  therefore,  if  I  were 
selecting  the  head,  or  my  advice  asked  as  to  the  character  of  man  to 
be  selected,  legal  ability  would  be  a  necessary  thing. 

The  Chairjuan.  As  I  followed  Mr.  Bryce  this  morning,  my  mind 
was  distinctly  impressed  with  the  idea  that  the  greatest  work  done 
by  parliamentary  counsel — the  most  important  work  done  by  pai'- 
liamentary  counsel — was  in  pointing  out  the  essentially  legal  facts : 
What  acts  were  repealed;  what  modified  and  what  undisturbed.  It 
seems  to  me  that  the  mere  mechanical  drafting  sinks  into  unimpor- 
tance. 

Dr.  Lewis.  I  agree  with  that.  I  will  take  an  illustration  from  my 
own  State.  Unfortunatel}'.  I  undertook  the  digest  of  the  laws  of  the 
State  (Pennsylvania),  and  since  then,  to  my  financial  disadvantage, 
I  have  carried  the  work  on.  Xow.  the  confused  condition  of  the 
laws  of  Pennsylvania,  and  many  other  States,  is  due  entirely  to  the 
passage  of  acts,  or  amendments  of  prior  acts,  without  any  concep- 
tion b}^  the  persons  who  passed  the  legislation  of  the  effect  of  that 
which  the}^  were  doing  on  prior  legislation.  The  great  value  of  our 
present  bureau  is  to  prevent  that  very  thing.  I  think  Dr.  McKirdy, 
who  is  here,  will  testify  to  the  same  effect. 

Mr.  Gardner.  Dr.  Lewis,  were  any  of  these  bills  we  have  been  con- 
sidering to-day  drawn  by  any  of  these  bureaus  ? 

Dr.  Lewis.  I  do  not  know:  I  was  simply  asked  to  appear  before 
your  committee 

]\fr.  Evans.  I  suggest  we  have  a  bill  drafted  and  see  how  it  hxiks. 

^Ir.  Gardner.  One  of  these  bills  certainly  seemed  to  me  to  raise 
some  surprising  constitutional  points. 

Dr.  Leavis.  I  have  not  read  the  bill. 

Mr.  Gardner.  You  realize  that  in  the  British  Parliament  the 
Treasury  Bench  is  composed  of  a  limited  numl)er  of  men,  some 
lawyers  and  some  not,  none  of  them  specialists.  The  Treasury  Bench 
introduces  practicalh'  all  important  legislation  Avliieh  is  to  be  passed. 


42  CONGRESSIONAL  EEFERENCE  BUREAU. 

Our  committees  draft  our  laws.  Our  committees  become  experts  and 
specialists.  On  all  our  great  committees  there  are  sure  to  be  Members 
more  familiar  with  matters  pertaining  to  that  committee  than  any 
general  bill  drafter  could  possibly  be. 

Dr.  Lewis.  I  would  like  to  answer  that  by  relating  a  personal  ex- 
l>erience  of  mine  in  the  last  six  months.  I  shall  not  mention  names, 
because  I  am  going  to  criticize  the  situation 

The  Chairman.  Go  ahead;  we  are  accustomed  to  that. 

Dr.  Lewis.  We  had  a  committee  of  expert  lawyers  from  all  over 
the  country,  some  of  them,  one  or  two,  judges  of  the  highest  repute, 
who  had  under  consideration  a  corporation  bill.  The  bill  had  been 
under  consideration  for  two  or  three  years  and  had  been  discussed 
from  time  to  time  with  no  definite  result,  but  they  had  most  thorough 
ideas  as  to  what  they  wanted  in  the  bill  clearly  in  their  minds.  Thej^ 
had  never  spent  any  money  to  secure  the  entire  time  of  one  person  to 
submit  to  them  a  draft  of  that  corporation  bill,  and  during  the  two 
days  we  were  discussing  that  bill  we  constantly  got  into  a  discussion 
of  language  which  we  did  not  understand;  one  man  had  one  inter- 
pretation and  the  other  another,  and,  as  a  result,  we  wasted  all  of 
two  days  and  got  no  further  than  when  we  started  on  that  bill. 

It  was  the  opinion,  I  believe,  of  many  of  those  present  that  the  only 
sensible  way  out  of  that  situation  would  be  to  get  some  one  man  who 
Avould  take  enough  time — and  it  would  have  to  be  all  of  his  time  on 
an  important  piece  of  legislation  of  that  kind — to  put  the  ideas  ex- 
pressed in  a  series  of  r&solutions  at  the  meeting  into  succinct  shape. 

And  I  will  say  this,  also,  in  further  reply :  The  fact  that  the  bulk 
of  English  legislation  is  not  prepared  by  specialists,  as  our  is  in 
committees,  makes  our  legislation  compare  very  favorably  with  the 
P^nglish,  though  the  English  is  in  better  form.  At  the  same  time, 
in  spite  of  the  fact  that  you  are  experts  on  immigration  (was  it 
not?),  you  would  find,  I  think,  considerable  practical  assistance  if, 
before  that  meeting,  the  bills  had  been  gone  over  by  expert  drafts- 
men. 

Mr.  Gardner.  You  are  aware,  of  course,  that  bills  affecting  immi- 
gration, for  instance,  are  usually  referred  to  the  Department  of 
Commerce  and  Labor  before  action  is  taken  in  committee? 

Mr.  Evans.  You  have  read  this  bill? 

Dr.  Lewis.  I  have  read  the  last  one. 

Mr.  Evans.  You  are  perfectly  satisfied  with  it? 

Dr.  Lewis.  The  only  thing  that  occurs  to  me  is  that  it  makes  the 
bill-drafting  a  part  of  the  library.  I  think  there  is  some  doubt  as  to 
that,  and  it  also,  as  expressed,  makes  it  doubtful  whether  the  real 
business  to  be  carried  on  is  not  merely  to  collect  material. 

Mr.  Evans.  In  your  experience,  you  are  satisfied  the  language  ex- 
presses itself  clearly? 

Dr.  Lewis.  I  have  not  read  the  bill  carefully  at  all,  with  a  view 
of  mere  technical  criticism. 

Mr.  Evans.  I  thought  we  were  having  a  hearing  on  this  bill. 

Dr.  Lewis.  You  mean  the  meaning  of  it? 

Mr.  Pickett.  I  was  not  present  during  all  of  your  statement.  Are 
you  the  head  of  some  bureau  of  this  kind  ? 

Dr.  Lewis.  No;  I  am  merely- trustee  of  the  Legislative  Drafting 
Association,  which  is  a  purely  philanthropical  association.  It  is 
nlloAved  certain  money  to  benefit  legislation,  and  my  work  has  been 


CONGRESSIONAL   REFERENCE   BUREAU.  43 

occasionally  to  prepare  bills  at  the  request  of  philanthropic  and  other 
persons  as  dean  of  a  laAv  school,  and  I  have,  since  the  establishment 
of  this  association,  gotten  a  great  deal  of  assistance  from  it. 

Mr.  Pickett.  The  reason  I  ask  is  that  it  seems  to  me  there  are 
other  features  of  importance  as  well  as  bill  drafting. 

Mr.  ToAvxsEND.  Mr.  Lewis,  several  questions  have  been  asked 
which  relate  to  this  language  in  section  4  of  the  bill,  which  gives  the 
duty  of  the  bureau,  in  lines  8,  9,  10,  and  11 ;  "  and  make  available  in 
translaticms,  indexes,  digests,  compilations,  and  bulletins,  and  other- 
wise, data  for  or  bearing  upon  legislation  and  to  render  such  data 
serviceable  to  Congress." 

I  have  in  mind  that  that  should  be  rather  more  comprehensive 
than  that.  They  should  gather  and  classify,  not  only  data  "for 
bearing  on  legislation"  but  general  information  and  data  bearing 
upon  public  services  of  the  various  departments  of  the  Government. 
To  make  a  concrete  example :  We  have  now  a  Tariff  Board,  which  is 
being  subjected  to  a  great  deal  of  criticism,  favorable  and  otherwise, 
lately;  would  it  not  be  desirable  for  such  bureau  as  may  be  estab- 
lished in  connection  with  the  Library  of  Congress  to  take  advantage 
of  the  enormous  volume  of  material  the  Library  affords  to  secure  the 
data  serviceable  to  Congress — not  alone  single  bills  but  all  public 
questions  Congress  has  to  discuss  ? 

Dr.  Lewis.  If  I  understand  correctly 

Mr.  TowNSEND.  It  seems  rather  limited,  I  think. 

Dr.  Lewis.  You  think  that  this  bill  directs  only  the  collecting  of 
data  upon  legislation  actually  in  contemplation  by  Congress — — 

Mr.  Townsend.  Exactly. 

Dr.  Lewis.  While  it  should  include  legislation  that  might  be  the 
outgrowth  of  such  a  board  as  the  Tariff  Board  in  its  recommenda- 
tions ? 

Mr.  Townsend.  Yes. 

Dr.  Lewis.  You  are  correct  that  it  should  be  sufficiently  broad  to 
enable  the  head  of  this  bureau,  anticipating  any  question  of  legis- 
lation, to  collect  material,  not  only  in  the  shape  of  laws  but  in  the 
shape  of  testimony  in  regard  to  the  working  of  existing  laws  and 
also  purely  economic  data  bearing  on  legislation.  As  I  understand 
this  word  "legislation"  here,  that  would  include  that,  would  it  not  ? 
It  is  legislation  in  its  broadest  sense ;  not  pending  legislation.  That 
is  what  it  means,  is  it  not  ? 

Mr.  TowNSEKD.  That  is  what  I  thought. 

Dr.  Lewis.  I  have  not  given  any  careful  special  duty  to  the  exact 
wording  of  this  bill. 

Mr.  Townsend.  The  reason  I  ask  is  that  there  is  another  bill  be- 
fore the  committee.  The  Wilson  bill  (H.  R.  11581)  seeks  to  create 
a  division  of  this  bureau  which  should  make  readily  available  for 
Members  of  Congress  data  on  all  sorts  of  economic,  industrial,  com- 
mercial and  shipping  subjects,  and  I  was  wondering  if  you  gentle- 
men who  had  given  special  study  to  this  question  might  not  think 
it  would  be  advisable  to  enlarge  Mr.  Nelson's  appropriation  in 
that  respect  so  that  a  division  of  this  bureau  should  have  the  special 
duty  of  gathering  and  putting  into  available  form  that  Avide  range 
of  commercial  and  economic  data. 

Dr.  Lewis.  I  think  I  should  not  reply  to  that  question,  because 
my  own  personal  experience  has  been  confined  to  the  looking  up  of 


44  CONGRESSIONAL.  REFERENCE   BUREAU. 

data  on  a  particular  subject,  the  digesting  of  that  data,  and  the 
drafting  of  an  act  based  on  the  data  digested.  My  experience  (I 
once  was  a  professor  of  economics  in  my  younger  days,  but  it  has 
been  a  good  many  days  since  I  studied  an  economic  subject)  is  such 
as  to  make  me  tend  to  sympathize  with  your  view 

Mr.  Nelson.  May  I  respond^ 

The  Chairman.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Nelson.  You  gentlemen  are  considering  this,  and  are  natu- 
rally the  ones  to  say  what  the  words  shall  be,  but  in  preparing  the 
bill  we  have  had  many  good  suggestions  and  criticisms,  and  we  have 
thought  that  that  section  would  accomplish  what  you  desire,  but  in 
order  that  it  should  not  be  academic  merely — if  it  is  to  be  a  useful 
thing — it  should  have  some  direction  toward  some  useful  informa- 
tion. It  is  for  the  purposes  of  legislation,  therefore  it  is  either  pros- 
pective or  present,  and  fixed  data  on  legislation.  It  is  very  compre- 
hensive, if  you  will  read :  "  Gather,  classify,  and  make  available  in 
translations,  indexes,  digests,  compilations,  and  bulletins,  and  other- 
v^•ise,  data  for  or  bearing  upon  legislation."  It  is  as  wide  as  lan- 
guage can  make  it  on  the  gathering  of  data,  but  shall  bear  on  legis- 
lation and  not  be  merely  academic. 

Mr.  Pickett.  I  suggest  we  shall  be  called  for  roll  call,  and  that 
if  the  committee  is  through  with  Dr.  Lewis,  Mr.  Nelson  call  some  one 
who  has  had  experience  with  the  actual  working  of  a  bureau  of  this 
kind. 

The  Chairman.  I  understand  Dr.  McCarthy  is  here  and  can  be 
called,  if  Dr.  Lewis  has  finished. 

Dr.  Lewis.  I  have  finished.  i 

The  Chairman.  Are  there  any  more  questions  for  Dr.  Lewis? 

There  were  no  more  questions  for  Dr.  Lewis,  Avhereupon  he  was 
excused. 

STATEMENT  OF  DR.  CHARLES  McCARTHY,  WISCONSIN  LEGISLA- 
TIVE REFERENCE  DEPARTMENT. 

Mr.  Nelson.  I  take  great  pleasure  in  calling  upon  Dr.  McCarthy, 
of  our  library,  because  I  think  the  records  will  show  he  is  the  orginal 
reference  library  man,  in  so  far  as  making  it  available  for  practical 
legislation.  He  has  no  set  speech,  but  he  will  be  glad  to  answer  any 
question  about  the  drafting  work  of  a  bureau  of  this  kind. 

The  Chair:man.  We  would  like  to  hear  from  the  Doctor. 

Dr.  McCarthy.  I  am  not  an  expert  in  this  work,  and  I  do  not  be- 
lieve thei'e  are  any  such  experts.  I  have  been,  however,  for  11  years, 
drafting  bills  for  my  State  as  chief  of  the  legislative  reference  de- 
partment. Now,  in  that  time  I  have  tried  to  assist  the  State  legis- 
lature, and  I  have  drafted  a  great  many  bills  for  Congress,  and  so 
have  some  little  experience  in  these  matters. 

I  have  studied  in  foreign  countries,  actually  at  first  hand,  the 
work  Mr.  Bryce  has  told  you  about  this  morning.  I  have  seen  the 
workings  of  these  bureaus  and  compared  them  with  ours.  In  our 
State  we  have  a  small  appropriation  of  some  $20,000,  which  is  very 
meager  and  aifords  comparatively  poor  resources  for  this  work,  but 
I  want  to  say  at  this  time  that  you  gentlemen  will  find  a  pretty  gen- 
eral appreciation  of  the  work  by  members  of  the  Wisconsin  Legis- 
lature and  those  who  are  now  your  associates  here  in  Congress. 


CONGRESSIONAL   REFERENCE   BUREAU,  45 

It  simply  comes  to  this:  Mr.  Brvce  was  telling  this  morning  about 
the  English  draftsmen.  Now,  they  are  men  of  very  high  standing 
and  very  highly  paid.  They  are  not  merely  lawyers,  but  do  a  great 
deal  of  gathering  of  material  of  all  sorts  in  working  up  their  bills. 
Sir  Courtney  Ilbert  Avas  for  a  great  many  years  the  English  drafts- 
man. He  says  in  the  drafting  of  many  statutes  the  usual  process  is 
to  set  some  committee  of  Parliament  at  work  upon  any  agreed  subject 
and  then  this  committee  forms  what  is  known  as  a  blue  book. 
This  blue  book  is  the  result  of  the  investigations  of  the  committee. 
Now.  after  Sir  Courtney  Ilbert  got  to  work  to  follow  the  instructions 
of  the  men  for  whom  he  was  Avorking.  he  would  take  the  statutes  of 
England  upon  the  particular  subject  and  cut  them  up  and  put  all 
the  other  material  he  could  get  together  in  one  place,  so  that  he  could 
have  in  conA'enient  form  the  material  which  must  be  readily  aA^ailable 
to  go  into  the  new  bills.  I  do  not  think,  in  the  formulation  of  a  great 
statute,  there  is  any  other  way  to  do  it.  Over  there  they  have  been 
greatly  handicapped  in  the  past  by  the  fact  that  they  have  no  ma- 
chinery to  get  that  data.  There  is  a  movement  on  foot  now  to  form 
what  is  known  as  the  permanent  staff  of  the  royal  commissions. 
This  would  create,  then,  practicalh'  a  department  similar  to  the  de- 
partment I  have  in  Wisconsin — the  same  as  is  contemplated  in  this 
bill — so  that  they  Avill  have  the  whole  machinery  soon  to  help  in 
working  out  of  that  classified  and  condensed  comparative  material 
which  should  be  in  the  hands  of  the  draftsmen  as  soon  as  he  receives 
his  definite  instructions  and  sets  out  to  draft  a  bill. 

Gentlemen,  I  recognize  that  institutions  grow  and  become  mighty 
dangerous  sometimes.  You  have  got  to  have  everything  of  this  sort 
checked  in  every  way.  It  must  be  checked  so  it  will  not  go  to  sleep 
and  become  a  great  big  bureau  full  of  red  tape  and  checked  so  that 
it  can  not  be  made  a  football  of  politics.  To  work  out  the  plans  I 
have  laid  in  Wisconsin  I  have  studied  out  how  these  things  had  been 
worked  out  in  foreign  countries.  It  is  absolutely  essential  that  you 
have  a  high  type  of  nonpartisan  bureau  so  that  no  one  can  say  it  is 
working  for  some  particular  politician  or  set  of  politicians.  It  must 
be  checked  up  to  see  that  every  piece  of  work  that  goes  out  will  be 
high  class,  and  yet  the  draftsmen  and  all  connected  with  such  a  de- 
partment must  be  absolutely  the  servants  of  the  legislature.  Xo  i:»iece 
of  work  goes  out  of  our  department  that  is  not  carefully  laid  down 
first  by  the  legislators  in  carefully  worded  written  instructions.  The 
draftsman  is  purely  the  servant  of  the  Wisconsin  Legislature.  He 
would  be  a  danger  if  he  were  not. 

]\Ir.  Xelsox.  He  is  a  collective  secretary. 

Dr.  McCarthy.  Yes.  I  want  to  describe  the  kind  of  work  we  go 
into — I  will  give  a  few  illustrations 

Mr.  Nelson.  Would  you  not  prefer  to  trace  the  groAvth  of  your 
department  and  tell  exactly  how  you  met  the  demands  ? 

Dr.  McCarthy.  I  shall  try  to  gi^-e  some  illustrations  of  the  method 
of  doing  business.  The  legislature  in  the  State  of  Wisconsin  wished 
to  have  railroad-commission  and  public-utility  bills.  The  first  thing 
they  thought  of  doing  in  the  public-utility  matter  was  to  get  the  gas- 
cojnmission  act  of  Massachusetts,  but  after  a  meeting  they  determined 
that  was  not  the  thing  to  do.  Some  of  the  members  of  the  legislature 
met  me  and  asked  me  to  get  information  upon  the  subject  of  public- 
utility  control  to  show  how  this  works  elsewhere.     I  enlisted  the 


46  CONGRESSIONAL   REFERENCE    BUREAU. 

State  Department  at  Washington  and  similar  departments  all  over 
the  world.  I  got  a  certain  professor  of  languages  at  the  Uni- 
versity of  Wisconsin  to  make  translations  for  me  of  different 
documents  bearing  upon  the  subject.  The  result  of  that  Avas, 
in  the  end,  after  going  over  this  for  six  or  seven  months,  we 
were  prepared  by  the  coming  of  the  session  of  the  legislature. 
There  was,  for  instance,  a  little  collection  to  show  how  depre- 
ciation funds  were  kept  in  different  countries;  how  sliding-scale 
schemes  were  worked  out;  administrative  devices  were  used,  etc. 
Finally  these  members  of  the  committees  agreed  upon  the  system 
used  by  the  Sheffield  Gas  Co.  in  England,  and  said  that  was  the 
thing  fit  for  Wisconsin  conditions,  and  for  me  to  get  my  draftsmen 
to  make  some  rough  drafts.  After  laying  down  the  principles,  these 
rough  drafts  were  submitted  to  the  committee.  The  committee  took 
them,  criticized  them,  and  told  me  to  do  them  over  again.  That  was 
done  over  twenty-two  times  in  the  case  of  one  bill,  involving  three  or 
four  months'  hard  work. 

I  have  five  draftsmen.  They  are  well  paid ;  not  as  well  paid  as 
they  should  be.  I  invite  any  man  to  say  that  any  political  party 
in  the  State  of  Wisconsin  has  any  criticism  to  make  of  this  bureau 
of  ours. 

Mr.  Nelson.  Was  not  the  final  result  of  that  treatment  of  the 
bill  that  the  legislators  and  public  companies  affected  virtually 
agreed  that  that  was  a  practical  and  fair  way  of  treating  all  inter- 
ests alike? 

Dr.  McCarthy.  Absolutely;  in  that  they  are  unanimous.  Since 
that  time  the  citizens  of  Wisconsin  are  very  favorable  to  it.  The 
public-utility  act  was  the  basis  of  10  or  15  laws  now  existing  in 
other  States  throughout  the  United  States. 

You  see,  in  that  way  you  put  efficient  machinery  in  the  hands  of 
the  legislators.  My  men  do  not  have  anything  to  say  about  the 
policy.  They  are  servants.  It  is  true,  after  training,  the}^  become 
expert  servants;  so  expert,  gentlemen,  that  some  of  them  can  get 
work  from  all  over  the  country  drafting  bills.  I  can  not  hold  them 
steadily  at  work  for  the  State  as  our  legislature  meets  only  once  in 
two  years. 

The  committees  of  the  legislature  should  have  some  of  these  men 
Avorking  with  them  constantly.  The  question  is,  Who  are  these  men? 
One  of  these  men  (once  in  the  legislature)  was  an  attorney  in  Madi- 
son. He  came  up  to  me  and  said,  "  I  Avould  like  to  come  up  and  give 
my  services  free."  He  is  now  an  assistant  professor  at  the  univer- 
sity. He  came  in  and  started  out  and  after  awhile  became  a  very 
scientific  man.  There  is  not  a  man  in  this  country  better  than  he  is 
on  this  matter  of  drafting.  He  ranks,  I  believe,  with  the  best  Eng- 
lish draftsmen.  Another  man  was  a  student  of  mine  while  I  was  a 
lecturer  in  political  sciences  in  the  university.  He  went  out,  prac- 
ticed law,  and  came  back.  They  are  men  who  have  Avorked  up. 
There  was  no  other  way  to  teach  them  or  no  other  place  but  in  our 
department.  There  are  also  clerks  or  junior  draftsmen  who  we 
do  not  trust  with  anything  important,  whom  we  give  a  chance  occa- 
sionally to  draft  a  minor  bill.  I  should  say  we  draft  about  nine- 
tenths  of  the  bills  in  the  State  of  Wisconsin. 


CONGRESSIONAL   REFERENCE   BUREAU.  47 

We  had  a  workmen's  compensation  bill  before  a  committee  of  the 
legislature.  There  did  not  seem  at  that  time  to  be  any  way  of 
getting  around  the  constitutional  provisions  relating  to  it.  Finally 
these  men  hit  upon  the  device  of  taking  away  the  connnon-law  de- 
fenses and  then  saying  to  the  employees,  ''  You  can  get  in  under  the 
compensation  plan  as  we  have  it  here."  Now,  then,  the  committee 
needed  to  find  out  actually  how  this  would  Avork  out.  We  found 
out  how  that  actual  experience  came  in.  I  went  over  to  Europe  my- 
self and  spent  three  months  going  through  hospitals  and  factories 
and  listening  in  courts  where  these  cases  came  up — in  Germany 
and  England  especially — and  kept  sending  that  material  I  got  over 
to  men  who  were  meanwhile  working  out  this  material  here.  Sec- 
retary Knox  gave  me  all  kinds  of  help.  I  sent  the  data  as  I  found  it. 
The  translators  who  work  for  the  committee  handled  it.  The  result 
of  it  was,  if  you  will  notice  in  the  Wisconsin  law,  in  the  procedure, 
the  provision  for  the  arbitration  court.  This  was  a  German  pro- 
cedure, and  I  do  not  suppose  any  of  us  would  know  that  that  condi- 
tion existed  in  Germany  unless  we  had  looked  it  up.  The  committee 
had  thought  to  adopt  the  English  act.  After  I  had  gone  over  there 
I  found  we  could  not,  because  the  third  party — the  insurance  com- 
pany— made  the  arrangement  a  bad  one.  The  German  system  had 
been  worked  out  by  great  experience  and  study,  resulted  in  greater 
economy  and  greater  humanit}',  and  our  committee  adopted  it  with- 
out question  when  it  had  the  evidence  before  it.  Of  course,  here  in 
Washington  a  great  part  of  this  would  be  done  differently,  but  in 
Wisconsin  our  legislative  reference  department  helps  whenever  it  is 
called  on. 

All  of  this  material  in  the  library  must  be  made  available.  It  can 
not  be  left  in  a  Spanish  book,  a  German  book,  or  any  other  foreign 
language.  It  must  be  collated,  so  that  Avhen  a  committee  comes  into 
the  room  the  members  can  take  up  the  data  wanted  at  first  hand. 

Now,  as  Mr.  Gardner  says,  some  committees  and  some  departments 
know  all  that.  Sometimes  some  one  in  a  department  knows  all  that, 
and  such  men  can  be  of  great  service  to  you,  but  there  are  two  things 
you  have  to  look  out  for.  The  men  of  these  departments  may  not 
care  to  go  ahead  always  and  work  at  it — they  have  other  work — and 
it  would  be  a  good  thing  sometimes  for  the  legislature  to  have  some- 
thing to  say  about  a  department  without  going  to  it  at  all.  We 
have  not  a  German  Government,  depending  upon  bureaus;  we  have 
an  American  Government,  dependent  on  legislators.  Often  there 
is  no  department  dealing  with  new  subjects  before  the  legislature. 
For  instance:  Where  could  we  go  in  Wisconsin  before  we  got  the 
railroad  commission?  There  was  not  anything  of  real  scientific 
importance  in  the  experience  of  the  different  States  of  the  Union 
which  could  really  help  us  with  the  working  out  of  new  adminis- 
trative devices.  In  these  new  problems  you  often  have  to  get  ex- 
perts from  all  kinds  of  places.  An  insurance  man  who  has  made 
a  specialty  of  some  actuarial  matters  will  have  to  be  brought  in  here ; 
a  chemist  who  may  know  another  Idnd  of  scientific  fact  brought 
in  there.  No;  the  departments  can  not  get  just  this  kind  of  material 
and  have  not  men  who  make  a  life  work  of  gathering  it.  It  is  a 
profession  by  itself.  The  whole  study  of  statute  law,  comparative 
law.  and  jurisprudence,  is  a  -cience  of  itself. 


48  CONGRESSIONAL  REFERENCE   BUREAU. 

Mr.  Evans.  I  understood  you  to  say  you  found  the  English  pro- 
vision would  not  do 

Dr.  McCarthy.  Yes. 

Mr.  Evans.  How  did  you  present  that?  Was  it  a  digest  of  the 
English  act  and  the  German  act  set  down  conveniently  for  com- 
parison ? 

Dr.  McCarthy.  Suppose  it  is  a  (juestion  of  insurance — as  to  the 
cost  of  certain  kinds  of  insurance.  I  can  go  into  the  German  and 
P^nglish  and  other  insurance  departments  and  get  their  facts  and  thus 
<ligest  them.  Suppose  it  was  to  compare  the  lumber  risks  in  Eng- 
land Avith  the  Woodworkers'  Insurance  Co.  in  Germany.  I  go  there 
and  get  the  material  and  send  it  over  to  America,  and  that  is  the 
kind  of  material  I  secure.  Of  course,  one  of  your  investigating 
(•(mimittees  might  get  material  like  this  much  more  completely,  but, 
perhaps,  not  with  the  standpoint  of  comparative  law  in  relation  to 
the  drafting  of  a  particular  bill  for  a  committee. 

JSIr.  E^■A^s.  I  was  wondering  in  what  form  you  passed  that  in- 
formation on. 

Dr.  McCarthy.  I  think  any  institution  that  is  merely  academic 
is  not  going  to  serve  your  purpose.  It  must  have  your  data  ready  for 
you,  and  you  gentlemen  all  know  that  the  books  on  legislation  are  all 
Avritten  after  the  legislation  is  passed,  while  you  want  the  data  while 
you  are  working  on  the  bill.  Such  a  department  would  cull  it  out 
everywhere  and  have  it  at  your  service  any  time.  You  Avant  not 
onlj^  the  laws  from  all  over  the  world,  but  you  want  most  of  all  at 
liand,  in  convenient  form,  data  which  show  you  how  they  work.  The 
(h'aftsman  working  under  your  supervision  and  direction  will  find 
his  work  greatly  helped  if  he  has  a  scientific  body  of  trained  workers 
collecting  such  comparative  data  and  doing  the  work  quickly,  ac- 
curately, and  always  to  the  point. 

Gentlemen,  I  believe — yes,  I  know — the  time  is  coming  when  you 
are  going  to  demand  that  there  shall  exist  here  in  Washington  as 
your  servants  a  body  of  men  trained  in  the  technique  of  statute  law, 
who  will  be  comparable  with  the  men  on  the  Supreme  Bench  itself  in 
ability  and  learning,  and  you  will  have  those  men  always  at  your 
command  to  help  you  as  highly  trained  and  well-paid  servants  to  put 
into  shape  statutes  which  you  wish  to  enact. 

The  Chahoian.  AVhy? 

Dr.  McCarthy.  You  have  before  your  committees  and  other  com- 
mittees the  investigation  of  the  trusts.  Now,  where  are  there  bills  in 
(^ongress  to-day  that  satisfy  you  gentlemen  at  the  present  time? 
How  many  men  are  working  on  these  bills  to-day,  notwithstanding 
the  great  amount  of  discussion  before  committees?  It  is  a  hard  thing 
to  work  out,  and  if  there  was  a  body  of  men  you  could  use — 10  men 
we  will  say — of  the  type  of  the  Supreme  Court  justices  and  your 
committee  there  woidd  say  to  them :  "  Now,  we  would  like  to  have  a 
draft  along  the  line  of  Federal  incorporation."  The  committee  could 
write  out  its  ideas  into  a  rough  memorandum  and  sign  their  names 
to  it.  and  the  drafting  bureau  would  proceed.  When  that  draft  is 
finished  the  committee  will  probably  want  another  draft  along  that 
line,  and  so  draft  after  draft  will  be  made,  so  that  the  committees  will 
finally  say :  "  That  is  about  what  we  agree  on,  so  put  it  into  shape." 

Mr.  Gardner.  Do  you  not  think  the  Library  would  rather  become 
the  home  of  that  bureau? 


^ 


CONGRESSIONAL  EEFERENCE   BUREAU.  49 

Dr.  McCarthy.  Now,  as  to  whether  the  Library  does  it  or  not,  I 
do  not  care.  But  the  Library  is  a  complete  institution  already.  It 
has  the  hooks  and  all  the  data  and  is  convenient  to  you,  and  it  is  a 
question  of  efficiency  and  economy  if  you  want  this  thing  put  there. 
As  to  the  English  department,  as  Sir  James  Bryce  was  telling  you, 
this  was  started  in  the  treasury  department  over  there.  So  govern- 
ment grows.  If  this  was  a  separate  department  you  would  have  to 
have  it  near  you  here  anyhow.  There  are  already  70  libraries  in 
Washington.  Do  you  Avant  to  create  another  one?  Where  can  you 
put  it?  You  do  not  want  to  duplicate,  as  you  have  all  that  plant 
ther'e.  Yes ;  it  seems  to  me  it  should  be  in  the  Congressional  Library. 
It  has  every  facility  and  splendid  collections  already.  It  is  con- 
venient in  every  way  and  nonpartisan. 

I  am  a  clerk  in  the  free  library  commission  in  Wisconsin,  and  that 
looks  after  the  traA^eling  libraries  sent  out  to  the  little  towns  in  Wis- 
consin. I  was  up  at  the  University  of  Wisconsin  and  found  out  they 
wanted  a  document  clerk  at  the  free  library  commission.  This  is  a 
nonpolitical  institution.  I  went  down  to  get  this  position,  and  the 
legislators  just  naturally  took  me  up  and  asked  me  if  I  would  stay 
down  there.  From  that  time  to  this  we  have  not  asked  the  legislature 
for  any  money  to  run  it.  This  shows  you  in  what  an  irregular  and 
yet  perhaps  effective  way  institutions  grow. 

Mr.  Gardner.  You  originated  it?  — . 

Dr.  McCarthy.  Yes.     Something  was  started  in  New  York  in    \ 
1890,  but  that  was  a  general  sociology  library.    When  I  started  in     \ 
1901  there  was  not  anything  like  what  we  have  now,  and  the  only      -^ 
precedent  I  have  gone  by  is  the  experience  I  have  studied  in  foreign  ' 

countries,  with  visits  and  talks  with  legislators,  and  a  general  study 
of  statute  law,  and  political  institutions  and  the  technique  of 
drafting. 

The  Chairman.  Are  there  any  other  States  where  similar  institu- 
tions are  maintained? 

Mr.  Town  SEND.  There  are  25.  more  or  less.  Wisconsin,  Indiana, 
Pennsjdvania.  and  New  York  are  leading,  with  the  others  rapidly 
developing.  The  difficulty  is  Dr.  McCarthy  has  had  to  train  men  to 
take  charge  of  these  libraries.  In  New  York,  one  of  his  men  is  in 
charge. 

]Mr.  Pickett.  While  this  bill  drafting  is  important,  there  are 
other  important  features.  To  illustrate,  there  is  a  committee  of  the 
House  having  hearings  on  the  right  of  the  United  States  to  discrimi- 
nate as  to  tolls  on  the  Panama  Canal.  The  Members  will  be  divided. 
How  would  a  bureau  of  this  kind  treat  that  question  so  that  the 
Members  of  the  House  could  get  information  in  a  condensed  form — 
that  is,  both  sides — so  we  could  give  it  our  study  prior  to  the  report  of 
the  committee? 

Dr.  McCarthy.  Is  it  a  question  of  tolls  ? 

Mr.  Pickett.  It  will  involve  the  right  of  the  United  States  to  dis- 
criminate in  favor  of  our  ships.  I  simply  use  it  as  an  illustration. 
How  would  a  bureau  such  as  you  suggest  treat  it? 

Dr.  McCarthy.  There  is  one  of  those  complicated  questions. 

Mr.  Pickett.  How  would  you  treat  it? 

Dr.  McCarthy.  I  can  not  say  offhand  how  I  would  treat  that  ques- 
tioiL    I  would  like  to  study  it  awhile.    There  are,  of  course,  questions 

40435—12 4 


50  CONGRESSIONAL.  REFERENCE   BUREAU. 

Avhich  are  a  matter  of  policy  and  about  wliicli  there  is  no  great 
amount  of  available  data. 

Mr.  Pickett.  That  is  what  I  am  getting  at.  On  the  one  side  it 
will  be  urged  that  under  the  terms  of  the  treaty  and  the  precedents 
that  our  Government  can  not  favor  our  ships,  while  on  the  contrary 
the  opposite  view  will  be  urged.  Will  it  be  the  function  of  this  bu- 
reau to  do  as  a  lawyer's  assistant  does  in  his  office,  make  a  brief  on 
both  sides  of  the  question? 

Dr.  McCarthy.  I  do  not  like  that  word  "brief."  We  never  make 
any  such  briefs.  There  is  no  reason  why  the  experience  of  other 
countries  could  not  be  presented  and  put  into  a  little  pamphlet. 
There  is  no  reason  why  any  arguments  or  data  could  not  be  fairly 
summarized  and  presented  in  some  little  pamphlet. 

Mr.  Pickett.  The  point  is,  would  this  bureau  collate  the  authori- 
ties and  references  on  both  sides  and  have  them  for  the  use  of  the 
Members  of  the  House? 

Dr.  McCakthy.  That  is  the  way  it  will  work  out. 

Mr.  Pickett.  Ordinarily  we  do  not  get  the  reports  of  committees 
until  a  short  time  before  we  are  required  to  act.  I  would  like  to  read 
or  study  both  sides  in  advance,  before  we  are  called  upon  to  vote.  I 
am  seeking  to  ascertain  if  this  bureau  will  perform  that  function. 

Mr.  TowKSEND.  As  I  understood  the  doctor,  in  answer  to  Mr. 
Evans's  objection  to  a  clerk — here  for  six  months,  of  course,  he  knows 
that  this  question  of  canal  tolls — the  man  in  charge  knows  this  ques- 
tion is  coming  up,  and  he  starts  his  force  collating  information  from 
every  possible  source,  so  that  in  the  fall,  when  Congress  comes  here, 
it  has  a  mass  of  information  which  no  committee  clerk  could  collect. 

Dr.  McCarthy.  That  is  a  perfectly  reasonable  thing  they  could  do. 

Mr.  Gardner.  I  do  not  think  that  the  canal  question  is  a  fair  one. 
Suppose  you  were  asked  to  report  on  contributory  forms  of  old-age 
pensions — they  are  contributory  or  noncontributory — or  something 
of  that  sort.  What  would  you  do  in  that  case?  Perhaps  you  have 
already  done  something  on  that  in  AVisconsin? 

Dr.  McCarthy.  Yes,  I  have.  There  are  different  systems  for  dif- 
ferent parts  of  the  world.  These  things  could  be  digested  in  some 
Avay  so  that  they  can  be  useful.  In  these  great  German  reports,  there 
are  things  which  come  to  the  point  on  the  things  which  arise  in 
America.  It  would  be  good  to  have  some  digest  made  of  these  things. 
If  I  were  in  Congress,  I  would  go  to  such  a  department  and  ask  them 
to  do  it.  I  would  select  and  take  the  material  I  wished.  I  do  not 
think  there  would  be  any  danger  in  getting  the  facts  and  data  to- 
gether in  a  convenient  form.  At  least  we  have  never  found  any  such 
danger  and  I  do  not  remember  of  any  protest  against  it. 

Mr.  TowNSEND.  You  translate  and  digest? 

Dr.  McCarthy.  Yes. 

Mr.  Nelson.  The  function  of  the  bureau  in  Wisconsin  has  never 
been  to  give  an  opinion  for  or  against  anything.  It  is  to  collect  the 
scientific  data  and  let  the  legislature  draw  its  own  conclusions? 

Dr.  McCarthy.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  TowNSEND.  I  suppose  you  collate  arguments.  Suppose  the 
question  not  only  was  how  old-age  pensions  had  worked  out  else- 
where, but  whether  or  not  it  was  wise  to  have  them  at  all ;  you  would 
collect  the  arguments  of  both  sides,  would  you  not  ?     You  would  not 


CONGRESSIONAL  REFERENCE  BUREAU.  51 

do  Avhat  Mr.  Nelson  said,  keep  the  arguments  of  one  side  entirely, 
but  you  would  keep  the  arguments  of  all  sides  fairly? 

Dr.  McCarthy.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Nelson.  On  the  questions  of  the  rules  of  the  House — the  mo- 
.  ment  a  speech  is  delivered  by  Mr.  Gardner  on  one  side  that  would 
be  collected.  There  would  be  Gardner's  speech  and  other  speeches 
and  they  all  would  be  there.  These  things  are  collected  irrespective 
of  the  side,  so  that  the  exact  point  can  be  known  without  waste  of 
time  and  work? 

Mr.  Gardner.  Is  there  not  danger  of  your  giving  biased  informa- 
tion? 

Ur.  McCarthy.  I  can  conceive  of  it,  but  my  experience  in  Wis- 
consin has  been  that  the  professional  spirit  of  trained  workers  makes 
them  eager  to  get  the  facts  Avithout  bias.  No  doubt  there  will  be 
accusation  of  bias,  but  I  am  not  afraid  of  that,  because  I  have  an 
abiding  confidence  in  the  fairness  of  the  average  man.  I  do  not 
remember  that  in  all  of  the  11  years  in  Wisconsin  anv  such  accusa- 
tion was  ever  made  against  my  workers. 

Now,  the  liquor  dealers  are  anxious  to  send  material  to  my  library, 
and  so  are  the  prohibitionists.  I  tell  them  both  if  they  want  ma- 
terial put  in  my  library  to  digest  it  and  it  will  be  put  there. 

You  said  this  morning,  Mr.  Gardner,  that  sometimes  the  books 
are  not  the  things  a  Congressman  wants.  Now,  there  is  an  immi- 
gration question  in  Wisconsin — immigrants  go  over  into  Canada — ■ 
and  we  want  that  immigration  question  fixed  in  the  northern  part 
of  our  State,  and  I  know  it  is  coming.  Right  in  my  department  are 
men  now  collecting  data  relating  to  the  settlement  of  cut-over  lands. 
This  may  include  laws  or  letters  or  date  or  reports  from  the  State 
Department  at  Washington,  or  data  from  wherever  immigration 
bureaus  have  Avorked  all  over  the  country,  or  from  countries  like 
Australia  or  Canada.  There  may  be  a  situation  in  Australia  similar 
to  what  we  have  in  Wisconsin  about  which  we  gather  facts  that  will 
be  arranged  by  a  cataloguer  and  indexer,  so  that  by  fall  I  will  have 
the  best  collection  of  data  on  immigration  in  relation  to  cut-over 
lands  that  exists  in  this  country.  That  will  be  ready  for  the  legisla- 
ture, and  there  is  no  other  way  it  could  be  gotten. 

Mr.  Cleveland,  of  the  President's  Efficiency  and  Economy  Bureau, 
has  been  Avorking  on  the  question  of  the  budget — aa'c  started  in  Wis- 
consin a  similar  investigation  at  the  same  time 

Mr.  ToAVNSEND.  What^  is  that,  Doctor? 

Mr.  Gardner.  Revenue  bills  and  appropriation  bills? 

Dr.  McCarthy.  Yes,  sir.  The  budget  system  is  the  system  in 
vogue  in  most  countries.  Noav,  in  the  last  tAvo  or  three  months,  I 
have  given  attention  to  that.  I  was  talking  AA'ith  Dr.  ClcAelahd 
this  morning  about  certain  French  material  I  had  sent  to  him, 
giving  an  entirely  ncAv  light  oit  Iioaa'  the  French  budget  Avorks  out. 
Now,  when  Ave  start  the  budget  in  Wisconsin  next  Avinter  we  aaIU 
know  a  good  deal  about  it  in  the  light  of  budget  systems  of  different 
States  and  countries.  So  subject  after  subject  is  taken  up,  and  if 
the  legislature  Av^ishes  to  go  on  and  make  a  bill  on  the  budget  system, 
the  chances  are  the  legislature  Avill  call  on  some  of  my  men — the 
committees  will — and  say,  "  This  is  what  we  want.  We  do  not 
know  hoAv  it  is  going  to  Avork,  but  Ave  Avill  try  it — noAV,  get  it  read3^" 


62  CONGRESSIONAL.  EEFERENCE  BUREAU. 

He  "will  make  a  rough  draft  and  more  drafts  until  they  get  what  they 
want. 

Mr.  Gardner.  How  many  members  are  there  of  the  Wisconsin 
Legislature  ? 

Dr.  McCarthy.  One  hundred  and  thirty-three. 

Mr.  Gardner.  How  many  make  use  of  your  department? 

Dr.  McCarthy.  We  keep  statistics — all  but  two. 

Mr.  Gardner.  One  hundred  and  thirty-one. 

Dr.  McCarthy.  Yes. 

Mr.  Gardner.  I  want  to  laiow  how  much  is  "  McCarthy  "  and  how 
much  is  bureau. 

Dr.  McCarthy.  I  am  trying  to  standardize  that  work  as  much  as 
possible.  We  do  not  want  anything  dishonestly  or  carelessly  done 
by  my  men,  so  every  piece  of  paper  comes  in  there  signed  with  a 
legislator's  name.  If  there  is  a  bill  drafted  the  man  who  drafts  it 
has  his  name  on  it,  etc.,  so  that  we  can  trace  down  to  every  person 
who  put  his  finger  on  that  piece  of  paper.  Every  investigation  I 
make  in  Wisconsin  I  have  a  carbon  copy  made  of,  and  this  is  put  in 
our  catalogue,  so  that  if  I  die  or  leave  or  get  sick  everyhing  is  in 
the  catalogue — the  whole  machine  is  there  if  I  leave,  so  that  some 
other  man  can  take  it  up. 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  training  some  more  "  McCarthies "  ? 

Mr.  McCarthy.  Yes;  I  am  training  some  boys;  but  they  are  in 
demand,  and  I  can  not  keep  them. 

Mr.  Nelson.  They  come  from  the  university  and  work  for  noth- 
ing— just  for  the  training. 

Dr.  McCarthy.  I  have  men  from  foreign  coimtries  also.  Go  to 
Tokyo  and  you  will  find  one  of  our  men  there.  I  have  boys  from 
different  States.  I  have  a  waiting  list  who  are  glad  to  work  for 
me  for  nothing.  It  is  a  school  for  them.  After  they  leave  me  they 
go  all  over  the  country  and  are  eagerly  picked  up  to  do  similar  work 
at  the  different  libraries  of  the  country.  In  a  way,  the  little  work 
we  have  started  in  Wisconsin  has  had  a  decided  effect  upon  the 
library  work  of  the  country;  besides,  it  has  had  some  effect  upon 
the  political  science  of  the  country,  and  it  is  going  to  have  some  effect 
upon  the  statute  law  of  the  country. 

The  Chairman.  You  spoke  of  liquor  laws.  That  is  a  very  lively 
topic  in  many  States.  Suppose  you  have  such  a  measure  in  Wis- 
consin— just  for  illustration — suppose  you  have  a  member  who  wants 
to  introduce  a  local-option  law,  county  unit  law,  or  county  precinct 
unit  law,  does  he  introduce  the  bill  in  the  house  or  senate,  embodying 
his  view,  or  does  he  come  to  your  bureau  first  and  ask  you  to  lick 
his  bill  into  shape  ? 

Dr.  McCarthy.  If  there  is  an  organized  society  such  as  a  labor 
union  or  a  prohibition  society,  the  chances  are  they  would  have  some 
attorney  draft  the  bill  in  pretty  good  shape  for  them.  When  the 
bill  comes  up  the  chances  are  the  legislator  will  submit  it,  with  his 
instructions,  to  my  department  before  it  is  presented,  in  order  to 
have  it  put  into  the  best  form. 

The  Chairman.  Before  it  is  presented? 

Dr.  McCarthy.  Yes. 

Mr.  Nelson.  Not  before  it  is  presented  by  the  association  to  the 
legislator  ? 


CONGRESSIONAIi  REFERENCE  BUREAU.  53 

Dr.  McCarthy.  No,  no.  The  association  takes  it  to  some  legis- 
lator before  it  can  possibly  come  to  me.  I  do  not  deal  with  any 
association.  I  work  for  the  legislature  only.  Members  of  the  leg- 
islature come  up  and  say  they  want  it  modified.  Probably  90  per 
cent  of  the  bills  at  the  legislature  come  to  my  department  for  modi- 
fication. 

Mr.  Pickett.  Is  there  any  provision  in  the  Wisconsin  laws  that 
this  work  shall  only  be  done  for  the  members  of  the  legislature  ? 

Dr.  McCarthy.  That  is  the  rule. 

The  Chairmajst.  Is  it  merely  your  practice  or  is  it  the  law? 

Dr.  McCarthy.  It  is  a  rule  of  the  legislature,  and  I  have  made  it 
a  rule  of  my  department.  Here  is  a  rule  which  I  have  laid  down 
for  the  draftsmen : 

RULES   FOE  THE  DRAFTING  ROOM. 

1.  No  bills  will  be  drafted  in  the  reference  room.  A  separate  drafting  room 
and  a  separate  force  have  been  provided. 

2.  No  bill  will  be  drafted  nor  amendments  prepared  without  specific  detailed 
written  instructions  from  a  member  of  the  legislature.  Such  instructions  must 
bear  the  member's  signature. 

3.  The  draftsman  can  make  no  suggestions  as  to  the  contents  of  the  bill.  Our 
work  is  merely  clerical  and  technical.     We  can  not  furnish  ideas. 

4.  We  are  not  responsible  for  the  legality  or  constitutionality  of  any  measures. 
We  are  here  to  do  merely  as  directed. 

5.  As  this  department  can  not  intx'oduce  bills  or  modify  them  after  intro- 
duction, it  is  not  responsible  for  the  rules  of  the  legislature  or  the  numbering 
of  sections  either  at  the  time  of  introduction  of  on  the  final  passage. 

Every  member  sees  these  rules  also. 

A  country  member  of  our  legislature  came  up  to  me  once.  He  wished 
to  make  an  issue  of  the  appropriations,  and  wanted  to  cut  them  down 
for  certain  departments,  so  he  came  up  to  us  and  wanted  to  do  this. 
On  the  list  was  the  appropriation  for  my  department.  He  came  up 
to  my  department  and  looked  at  it,  and  said :  "This  is  a  good  depart- 
ment, and  will  you  help  me  out  ?  "  The  bill  provided  for  the  repeal 
of  our  department.  We  drafted,  without  question,  just  the  way  he 
wanted  it. 

Mr.  Evans.  We  have  had  a  good  many  investigations  here  during 
the  past  year  and  have  had  many  hearings — take  the  sugar  inquiry, 
for  instance.  If  abstracted  this  would  be  about  three  or  four  hun- 
dred pages.  It  is  impossible  for  the  Members  of  this  House  to  read 
the  hearings  we  have  had  during  the  past  year.  Bills  will  be  intro- 
duced and  read,  and  we  are  not  sufficiently  advised  about  them,  and 
it  has  occurred  to  me  that  we  might  be  advised  by  utilizing  the  bureau 
for  the  purpose  of  abstracting  these  hearings. 

The  Chairman.  These  gentlemen  spoke  of  preparing  masses  of 
data.  Of  course,  if  presented  in  that  form,  it  is  not  of  much  value, 
but  my  understanding  is  that  it  shall  digest  and  present  in  what 
you  call  tabloid  form  the  information  you  desire.  It  is  impossible  to 
read  four  or  five  hundred  pages  of  any  hearing.  I  do  not  intend  to 
do  it. 

Mr.  Evans.  Would  it  be  possible  for  you  to  simplify  these  things. 
Do  you  present  your  digests  in  Wisconsin  in  the  form  of  documents, 
or  do  you  have  a  statement  which  says :  "  The  general  authorities  on 
this  side  are,  etc.,  and  on  the  other  side,  etc."? 

Dr.  McCarthy.  We  have  all  kinds  and  forms. 


54  CONGRESSIONAL.  EEFERENCE   BUREAU. 

Mr.  Pickett.  Can  you  not  send  us  down  a  sample  of  your  goods  'I 

Dr.  McCarthy.  Yes ;  I  will.  On  a  great  many  of  our  bills  I  have 
prepared  books  [shows  small  flexibly  bound  book,  in  size  about  2^  by  i 
31  by  i  inch]  containing  about  30  pages,  printed  in  big  type.  For 
instance,  on  tlie  question  of  exemptions  from  garnishment  there  was 
the  law  of  England  summarized  briefly,  and  after  that  the  laws  of 
the  different  States  on  that  subject,  with  references  as  to  where  the 
full  authority  could  be  found. 

Mr.  TowjsSEND.  In  your  department? 

Dr.  McCarthy.  Yes.  Other  members  wanted  something  on  this 
bill,  and  just  wanted  to  get  the  authorities  of  the  other  States  with 
laws  just  like  them.  You  will  find  men  in  the  Legislature  of  Wiscon- 
sin constantly  pulling  these  books  out  of  their  pockets.  We  can  not 
print  many  of  them,  because  it  takes  quite  a  lot  of  clerical  help 
to  get  them  out.    They  are  of  great  service. 

Mr.  Gardner.  I  think  we  have  plenty  of  printed  matter ;  we  have 
reports  on  pretty  nearly  every  bill,  majority  and  minority  reports. 
I  am  afraid  that  people  do  not  always  read  them, 

Mr.  Evans.  I  know  we  have  majority  and  minority  reports 

Mr.  Nelson.  If  the  committee  asked  that  that  abstract  be  made, 
the  chief  would  doubtless  set  some  one  to  do  the  work.  It  is  the  col- 
lective secretary  of  Congress. 

Dr.  McCarthy.  Yes.  A  water-power  bill  came  up  in  our  State 
and  we  raked  Europe  for  that  water-power  legislation  and  actually 
got  hold  of  a  bill  that  the  Prussian  Government  was  about  to  intro- 
duce over  there  to  change  the  water-power  legislation.  We  got  hold 
of  it  and  it  was  digested  for  the  legislature,  and  when  the  bill  came 
up  we  had  that  information.  We  have  a  great  many  instances  where 
we  are  gathering  material  of  that  kind.  The  material  from  Wash- 
ington is  of  great  service  to  us.  We  keep  track  of  your  bureaus  all 
the  while.  Mr.  Meyer  sends  me  quantities  of  material  and  Mr.  Put- 
nam send  quantities  of  it.  He  must  have  sent  me  fifty  or  a  hundred 
volumes  in  one  year.  We  use  the  library  of  foreign  law  at  the  North- 
western University.  We  keep  indexes  not  only  of  books,  but  we  know 
men  all  over  the  country — experts — and  we  have  indexes  telling 
where  the  books  are  and  the  men  are.  Books  are  sent  up  to  us  from 
here  and  we  make  a  card  for  each  book  m  the  index,  and  on  the  bot- 
tom of  the  card  show  "  Congressional  Library,  Washington,"  etc. 
A  couple  of  weeks  before  a  bill  comes  up  we  have  people  working  at 
that  bill  altogether. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  the  university  library  at  your  disposi- 
tion, or  one  of  your  own  ? 

Dr.  McCarthy.  We  have  but  a  very  small  library  of  our  own. 
We  do  not  want  to  duplicate.  I  keep  only  what  I  want  for  my 
bureau,  and  then  I  try  to  send  the  material  I  get  out  to  the  histori- 
cal society  and  the  university  library  and  have  them  take  care  of  it. 
They  can  get  it  back  to  me,  if  wanted,  in  a  quarter  of  an  hour.  They 
take  care  of  the  material,  and  my  people  do  the  supplementary  work, 
such  as  the  data  for  the  budget  investigation,  etc.  We  get  supple- 
mentary information.     For  instance 

Mr.  Nelson.  Just  indicate  how  you  handle  the  newspaper  clip- 
pings— how  they  are  pasted  on  sheets  and  indexed  so  that  everything 
is  listed  down  and  you  can  give  the  latest  thing  on  any  article. 


CONGRESSIONAL  EEPERENCE   BUREAU.  55 

Dr.  McCarthy.  Take  the  primary-election  law.  When  the  pri- 
mary-election bill  went  into  force  in  Wisconsin  I  do  not  think  there 
was  a  good  book  on  that  subject.  Take  the  initiative  and  referen- 
dum— there  is  no  really  good  book  on  that.  We  must  gather  the 
data  and  find  out  how  it  works.  It  is  a  good  thing  to  gather  this 
information  before  you  come  to  the  actual  consideration  of  bills  on 
such  subjects.  How  was  the  State  to  get  a  collection  of  primary- 
election  laws?  We  cut  up  the  election  laws  of  different  States.  It 
may  be  a  question  of  open  or  closed  primary.  We  rake  in  all  the 
information  and  laws  and  clip,  paste,  and  digest  it  and  have  it 
printed  in  small  books,  marking  on  the  outside  of  one  ''  Open  pri- 
mary "  and  on  the  other  "  Closed  primary." 

Mr.  Pickett.  As  soon  as  the  opinions  of  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States  are  published  you  would  have  them  cut  out? 

Dr.  McCarthy.  Oh,  yes.  There  may  be  a  man  coming  in  de- 
manding it  to-morrow.  There  are  all  kinds  of  questions  coming 
along,  and  the  legal,  comparative,  and  statistical  data  must  be  all 
classified  together  and  readily  accessible. 

The  Chairman.  Your  bureau  is  supported  by  a  direct  appropria- 
tion by  the  legislature  of  $20,000  a  year,  is  it  not? 

Dr.  McCarthy.  Yes.  If  this  bureau  was  located  anywhere  else 
it  would  be  different,  but  I  am  able  to  get  the  university  students 
and  professors  out  there  for  research  work.  We  know  where  there 
are  a  great  many  subjects  being  worked  out  at  the  university,  and 
we  know  who  is  the  man  doing  the  work,  and  we  can  get  his  help — 
he  is  interested  in  the  work,  and  when  the  committee  meets  they  will 
want  him  before  it.  If  I  ran  it  any  place  else,  or  ran  it  upon  a  com- 
mercial basis,  I  would  want  $40,000  for  it. 

Mr.  Gardner.  I  should  rather  anticipate  this  danger — for  in- 
stance, that  the  material  might  get  too  voluminous,  and  the  con- 
denser or  digester  be  either  unfair  or  biased. 

Dr.  McCarthy.  You  are  absolutely  right.  That  is  the  hardest 
thing  I  have  had  to  do — to  keep  the  dead  stuff'  out  and  the  live 
stuff  in. 

I  can  not  find  anybody  to  take  my  place  on  this  work ;  that  is  the 
truth  of  it.  It  takes  intelligent  consideration  of  all  this  material 
to  make  it  valuable.  Anybody  in  this  work  will  agree  with  me.  It 
takes  a  great  deal  of  training.  The  new  library  of  to-day  is  trying 
to  get  at  the  value  of  things.  It  is  now  a  question  of  selection  rather 
than  one  of  mere  collection. 

Mr.  Gardner.  If  you  take  all  our  statutes,  there  is  the  same  diffi- 
culty as  there  is  in  searching  the  Congressional  Record. 

Mr.  TowNSEND.  Has  there  been  any  diminution  of  bills  intro- 
duced or  passed  in  the  Legislature  of  Wisconsin  since  1901? 

Dr.  McCarthy.  Since  1901  there  has  been  a  slight  increase  in 
Wisconsin.  If  you  go  back  of  that  time  you  will  find  that  we  had 
at  one  time  annual  sessions  and  had  private  bills  for  the  incorpora- 
tion of  churches,  cemeteries,  etc.  There  you  Avould  find  a  great 
many  more  bills  than  now,  but  you  will  find  an  increase  at  present 
in  every  county  and  in  every  State.  The  Fifty-sixth  Congress 
passed  upon  20,000  bills ;  the  Sixty-first  Congress,  40,000  bills.  In 
England  the  bills  have  increased  fourfold.  There  it  is  simply  be- 
cause Lloyd  George  and  his  followers  are  trying  to  tear  up  the 


56  CONGRESSIONAL.  EEFEBENCE   BUREAU. 

statutes.  Compared^  with  Massachusetts  last  session  Wisconsin  has 
greatly  decreased  its  output.  We  have  probably  one-half  the  bills 
of  Massachusetts. 

Mr.  Nelson.  Dr.  McCarthy,  you  have  been  training  young  law- 
yers and  getting  their  services  free.  Now,  what  do  you  have  to  pay 
them  after  they  are  experts? 

Dr.  McCarthy.  My  men  are  now  paid  about  $100  a  week  when 
working  for  a  short  time.  In  the  sessions  of  the  legislature  I  get 
them  for  $200  to  $300  a  month.  The  way  I  have  worked  it,  gen- 
tlemen, is  I  have  taken  them  and  given  them  a  training,  and  now 
they  are  getting  well  paid  for  it, 

Mr.  Nelson.  What  is  the  competition  you  have  to  maintain  with 
the  business  world  now  that  there  is  outside  demand  for  their 
services  ? 

Dr.  McCarthy.  My  men  are  eagerly  sought  by  all  sorts  of  private 
institutions.  I  myself  have  been  offered  salaries  many  times  my 
present  salary,  and  my  men  have,  I  know,  had  similar  experiences. 
You  have  got  to  pay  a  man  a  good  wage  to  keep  him  in  the  service. 
There  is  a  limited  number  of  men  who  do  work  of  this  kind,  and 
the  demand  for  them  has  been  so  great  that  they  can  demand  their 
price.  We  can  not  pay  over  a  certain  amount.  You  see,  the  gov- 
ernor of  the  State  only  gets  $5,000,  and  you  certainly  can  not  go 
much  above  that.  I  think,  gentlemen,  our  men  are  all  poorly  paid 
in  comparison  with  the  pay  of  private  institutions,  considering 
things  are  the  same  as  in  our  State — on  a  high  grade,  with  stiff  civil- 
service  law. 

Mr.  TowNSEND.  Are  you  under  the  classified  service  ? 

Dr.  McCarthy.  No,  sir.  My  department,  on  the  whole,  is,  but  I 
am  not.  When  I  went  to  work  for  the  legislature  I  went  on  the 
basis  that  they  would  allow  me  to  take  the  men  I  wanted,  without 
regard  to  politics,  and  I  was  allowed  to  do  so;  then,  after  the  civil- 
service  law  become  effective  the  legislature  exempted  my  department 
from  the  civil  service.  The  reason  they  gave  was  that  they  did  not 
know  how  the  civil-service  law  was  going  to  operate,  but  they  did 
know  my  bureau  was  a  good  institution.  I  am  appointed  by  a  board 
consisting  of  the  president  of  the  university,  the  superintendent  of 
public  schools  for  the  State,  and  the  head  of  the  historical  society, 
and  two  others,  appointed  for  long  terms.  The  department  is  non- 
partisan. 

The  Chairman,  Has  there  ever  been  any  effort  to  bring  politics 
into  appointments  to  your  bureau? 

Dr.  McCarthy.  Yes,  sir.  At  one  time  seven  senators  told  me  that 
they  would  drive  me  out  of  the  capitol  if  I  would  not  take  certain 
men  in  my  department.  I  did  not  take  them.  This  is  the  most 
serious  thing  that  has  ever  happened  to  me  since  I  have  been  there. 

The  Chairman.  Did  they  undertake  to  carry  out  their  threat? 

Dr.  McCarthy.  No,  sir ;  that  was  only  a  bluff.  I  want  to  say,  gen- 
tlemen, that  for  years — ^ight  years,  at  least — there  has  been  no  at- 
tempt to  sway  me  one  way  or  another  politically,  and  I  think  any 
attempt  to  do  it  at  any  time  would  be  found  out. 

The  Chairman.  The  introduction  of  partisan  politics  into  such  a 
bureau  as  yours — such  a  bureau  as  is  proposed  in  this  bill  here-^ 
would  be  fatal,  would  it  not? 

Dr.  McCarthy.  Absolutely  disastrous. 


CONGRESSIOaSTAL  REFERENCE   BUREAU.  57 

The  Chairman.  What  about  having  it  bipartisan  ? 

Dr.  McCarthy.  I  do  not  believe  in  any  such  arrangement. 

The  Chairman.  I  asked  because  the  suggestion  has  been  made,  not 
by  a  Member  of  Congress,  but  by  a  man  interested  in  the  measure. 

Mr.  Nelson.  I  would  like,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  have  the  committee 
hear  from  a  man  who  has  had  five  years'  practical  experience 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Nelson,  if  Mr.  Mann  and  Speaker  Clark  are 
coming  over  in  the  morning,  would  it  not  be  well  to  hold  some  of 
3^our  speakers  for  the  morning  session  to-morrow  ? 

The  committee  thereupon,  on  motion  of  the  chairman,  at  4  o'clock 
and  30  minutes  p.  m.,  adjourned  to  meet  at  10  o'clock  a.  ni.  to-mor- 
row, February  27,  1912. 

Committee  on  the  Library, 

House  Office  Building, 
Washington,  D.  C,  Tuesday,  February  27, 1912. 
The  committee  met  at  10  o'clock  a.  m. 

Present:  Representatives  Slay  den  (chairman),  Townsend,  Evans, 
and  Pickett. 

The  Chairman.  Gentlemen,  Mr.  Mann  will  make  a  statement  in 
reference  to  these  bills  now. 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  JAMES  R.  MANN,  MEMBER  OF  CONGRESS 

FROM  ILLINOIS. 

Mr.  Mann.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  somewhat  embarrased  in  making 
this  statement,  because,  like  all  of  the  rest  of  you 

The  Chairman.  Pardon  me,  would  you  like  to  have  a  copy  of  the 
bill? 

Mr.  Mann.  I  have  a  copy  in  my  pocket.  I  do  not  know  whether  I 
have  it  in  my  head  or  not. 

The  Chairman.  I  dare  say  you  have  it  in  your  head. 

Mr.  Mann.  Like  all  the  rest  of  us,  we  are  groping  somewhat  in 
the  dark  on  these  propositions.  I  listened  yesterday  with  consider- 
able interest  to  the  statement  of  Ambassador  Bryce,  but  I  beg  to 
suggest  that  in  the  consideration  of  this  proposition  it  should  be 
kept  in  mind  all  the  time  that  the  situation  as  to  legislation  in  this 
country  is  entirely  different  from  that  as  to  legislation  in  those  coun- 
tries which  have  a  responsible  ministry.  Here  the  executive  does 
not  prepare  bills  for  consideration,  as  a  general  rule,  and  our  Senate 
has  gone  so  far  as  to  indicate  a  desire  that  the  heads  of  the  depart- 
ments should  not  be  permitted  to  send  to  committees  of  the  Senate 
the  draft  of  bills  which  they  desire  to  have  considered.  Personally, 
I  have  always  thought,  and  still  think,  that  it  is  quite  desirable  to 
have  any  of  the  departments  of  the  Government  which  proposes 
or  recommends  legislation  to  put  that  in  the  form  of  tentative  draft 
of  a  bill,  thereby  expressing  in  the  concrete  an  abstract  proposition, 
which  is  usually  much  more  difficult  to  express  in  the  concrete  than 
it  is  in  the  abstract;  and  sometimes  when  you  come  to  express  it 
in  the  concrete  it  changes  the  opinion  of  the  man  who  has  an  abstract 
j)rinciple  in  his  mind. 

However,  it  is  perfectly  patent,  I  think,  to  anyone  who  has  much 
the  experience  in  any  legislative  body  in  this  country  that  the  great 
lack  that  we  have  is  scientific  procedure  in  legislation.     That  is  more 


58  CONGEESSIONAL  EEFEEENCE   BUREAU. 

SO  probably  in  the  State  legislatures  than  it  is  in  Congress,  because 
there  the  members  of  the  local  legislatures  vary  and  change  more 
often  than  they  do  here;  committees  are  more  the  result  of  contest 
over  the  organization  of  the  legislative  bodies  than  they  are  here. 
In  the  House,  of  course,  the  complexion  of  committees  changes  when 
the  party  in  the  control  of  the  House  changes,  but,  as  a  rule,  in  the 
House  a  man  who  goes  on  a  committee  remains  on  that  committee 
as  long  as  he  is  a  Member  of  the  House  and  desires  to  remain  on 
the  committee,  except  for  the  change  in  party,  where  the  minority 
party  necessarily  loses  some  members,  but  even  that  does  not  often 
remove  a  Member  from  a  committee.  It  would  be  very  desirable,  in 
my  opinion,  to  have  some  one  connected  with  the  House  in  some  Avay 
who  will  examine  bills.  At  least  it  must  be  the  constant  experience  of 
all  Members  of  the  House  who  endeavor  to  prepare  bills  themselves, 
oftentimes  without  much  experience  in  the  preparation  of  bills,  that 
they  do  not  feel  qualified  to  follow-  the  regular  forms  in  regard  to  leg- 
islation, and  it  is  perfectly  apparent  to  anyone,  I  think,  that  where 
you  enact  a  number  of  legislative  acts  someAvhat  along  the  same 
lines  it  is  desirable  to  use  the  same  form,  because  that  requires 
less  difficulty  of  construction  of  the  act  itself.  Certain  forms  come 
to  be  accepted  as  having  certain  meaning,  and  it  is  desirable  in  that 
direction. 

As  an  illustration  in  a  way  of  that  proposition,  when  I  came  into 
the  House  and  went  on  the  Committee  on  Interstate  and  Foreign 
Commerce,  a  committee  which  deals  with  the  reporting  of  bills  con- 
cerning the  construction  of  bridges  and  dams  across  interstate  navi- 
gable waters,  it  was  then  the  custom  for  some  one  interested  in  a 
proposition,  usually  probably  the  attorney  of  the  company  which 
was  interested,  to  prepare  a  bill.  Sometimes  those  bills  would  be 
one  section  a  page  long ;  sometimes  there  would  be  ten  or  a  dozen  sec- 
tions, and  a  number  of  pages  long — their  being  no  variation,  in  fact, 
in  the  principle  involved,  so  far  as  the  control  was  concerned.  I 
conceived  the  idea  that  in  granting  permits  for  such  purposes  that 
it  was  desirable  to  use  the  same  form  and  grant  them  upon  the  same 
condition,  unless  unusual  circumstances  had  arisen,  and  we  passed 
what  is  known  as  the  general  bridge  act,  and  then  again,  afterwards, 
the  general  dam  act,  for  the  purpose  of  putting  everybody  upon  the 
same  plane.  That  goes  to  the  matter  of  form,  and  everybody  con- 
cedes that  that  was  a  step  in  the  right  direction  both  in  the  matter 
of  saving  time  in  the  House  and  saving  time  in  committees  and 
taking  a  form  which,  after  once  being  construed,  would  be  under- 
stood by  all  parties  concerned. 

I  do  not  quite  agree,  though  I  do  not  say  I  disagree,  with  the 
proposition  of  the  bill  under  consideration,  that  15  Members  of  the 
House  should  be  entitled  .to  call  upon  the  person  appointed  for  the 
preparation  of  a  bill.  It  is  just  as  easy  to  get  15  Members  to  make 
a  request  in  the  House  as  it  is  to  get  one,  because  among  good-natured 
gentlemen  if  one  person  desires  something  which  he  thinks  proper 
and  the  others  do  not  think  it  is  improper  they  are  always  willing 
to  join  him  in  making  a  request. 

T  also  doubt  the  desirability  of  having  the  body  that  is  proposed 
gather  information  from  the  four  quarters  of  the  earth  as  to  the 
legislative  experience  of  other  peoples  nnd  other  legislatures  con- 
cerning every  proposition  that  may  come  up.    We  have  now  in  the 


CONGRESSIONAL  REFERENCE   BUREAU.  59 

Bureau  of  Labor  a  bureau  that  attempts  to  collect  all  available  in- 
formation concerning  legislation  which  affects  labor.  We  have  other 
bureaus  of  the  Government  which  attempt  to  do  the  same  things 
along  special  lines.  But  I  think  there  can  be  no  question  that  it  is 
desirable  to  have  somebody  connected  with  the  legislating  functions 
of  the  Government,  either  directly  under  the  control  of  the  House  or 
the  Senate  or  indirectly  responsive  to  the  will  of  those  bodies  or  their 
committees,  who  will  remain  permanently,  who  will  acquire  knowl- 
edge in  reference  to  the  form  of  drafting  bills,  who  will  be  qualified  to 
go  over  bills  after  they  have  been  passively  or  tentatively  agreed  to 
by  committees,  for  the  purpose  of  correcting  errors,  pointing  out 
difficulties,  and  in  A'arious  other  ways  assisting  the  committees. 

Under  our  form  of  government,  I  think  that  in  the  main  the  legis- 
iative  Avork  comes  through  the  committees.  In  England  or  the 
United  Kingdom  the  Government  proposes  the  legislation,  and  nec- 
essarily proposes  it  in  the  form  in  which  they  desire  it  to  be  enacted. 
That  is  not  practicable  here.  Propositions  come  before  Congress 
from  every  quarter,  but  the  committees,  in  the  first  instance,  must 
necessarily  put  that  legislation  in  such  form  as  they  desire  to  have 
it  presented  to  the  House  or  the  Senate.  We  all  know  very  well  that 
the  consideration  of  such  propositions  by  bills  in  the  House,  while 
not  an  ideal  ceremony  by  any  means,  is  largely  dependent  upon  the 
Avill  of  the  committee.  E^'^ery  Member  of  the  House  is  called  upon 
constantly  to  rote  upon  propositions  concerning  which  he  does  not 
pretend  to  be  informed  at  all,  and  in  such  cases,  if  he  is  on  the 
majority  side  of  the  House,  usually  votes  with  the  committee,  and 
properly  so.  If  upon  the  minority  side  of  the  House  he  feels  less 
responsible;  sometimes  he  does  and  sometimes  he  does  not  vote  with 
the  committee. 

If  we  can  organize  a  body  of  some  form  which  would  act  for  the 
House  as  the  clerk  of  the  Committee  on  Appropriations,  for  instance, 
acts  for  the  committee,  and  also  for  Members  of  the  House,  it  would 
be  extremely  desirable.  Mr.  Courts  is  now  the  clerk  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Appropriations,  and  Avas  placed  in  that  position  in  the  first 
instance  by  a  Democrat.  At  one  time,  when  a  Republican  was  made 
chairman  of  that  committee,  the  Republican  chairman  named  an- 
other man  for  the  place,  and  the  committee  declined  to  agree  to  the 
neAV  clerk  and  retained  Mr.  Courts.  Since  that"  time  he  has  been  re- 
tained by  Republican  and  Democratic  chairmen,  and  I  think  no  one 
would  dispense  with  his  services.  I  do  not  knoAV  what  the  present 
Speaker  of  the  House  would  have  done  if  Mr.  Hinds,  the  parlia- 
mentary clerk  of  the  House,  had  not  himself  chosen  to  try  for  mem- 
bership in  the  House  and  been  elected  a  Member  of  the  House. 

Speaker  Clark.  I  would  have  appointed  him  parliamentary  clerk 
without  any  hesitancy  Avhatever. 

Mr.  Mann.  I  have  always  supposed  that,  and  I  advised  Mr.  Hinds, 
when  he  talked  to  me  about  running  for  Congress,  that  of  course  that 
was  his  privilege,  but  in  my  judgment  if  he  desired  to  remain  par- 
liamentary clerk  of  the  House  he  would  retain  that  position,  whoeA^er 
was  Speaker  or  whicheA^er  party  was  in  control,  as  long  as  he  desired 
to  and  kept  out  of  politics,  and  that  Avas  because  of  his  known  fair- 
ness and  his  ability,  his  experience,  and  his  knowledge  of  parlia- 
mentary law. 


60  CONGRESSIONAL  REFERENCE   BUREAU. 

If  we  had  some  one  either  under  the  provisions  of  the  pending  bill 
or  in  some  other  way  to  whom  committees  could  go  for  guidance  or 
aid,  it  would  be  of  great  assistance.  But,  bear  this  in  mind,  gen- 
tlemen: We  are  the  legislative  bodies;  we  are  responsible  for  our 
legislation.  With  a  membership  that  has  been  constantly  enlarged 
for  many  years,  the  tendency  in  our  own  legislative  body  as  now  con- 
stituted is  to  shift  responsibility,  is  to  escape  the  burdens  of  legisla- 
tion, is  to  let  some  one  else  do  the  legislative  work.  I  would  not 
want  to  see  any  movement  which  would  make  committees  feel  less 
responsibility  for  the  work  that  they  do  so  that  a  committee  would 
be  able  to  say,  "  This  is  recommended  by  the  parliamentary  adviser 
or  the  congressional  adviser,  and  therefore  it  should  be  accepted." 
All  that  the  adviser  can  do  is  to  advise  as  to  form  and  effect.  We 
had  a  case  in  the  House  the  other  day  where  a  bill  was  proposed  on 
the  Unanimous  Consent  Calendar,  where  I  objected  to  the  then  con- 
sideration of  the  bill.  It  was  the  fourth  attempt,  three  laws  having 
been  passed  prior  upon  the  same  subject,  to  grant  relief  to  something 
less  than  a  hundred  people  who  at  one  time  settled  upon  what  they 
supposed  was  the  public  domain,  but  which  was  afterwards  declared 
to  be  railroad  propert3^  If  the  first  bill  had  been  drafted  by  a  com- 
petent official  in  the  Department  of  the  Interior  and  had  been  recom- 
mended by  the  head  of  the  department  as  being  sufficient  to  meet  the 
emergency,  they  would  probably  have  so  construed  the  law  after  it 
was  passed.  That  department  ought  to  have  in  its  service  a  com- 
petent parliamentary  assistant,  fully  familiar  with  the  rules  of  the 
House,  fully  familiar  with  the  forms  of  legislation  and  the  pro- 
cedure in  reference  to  legislation,  because  they  are  co  constantly 
called  upon. 

We  have  rules  under  which  we  proceed  in  the  consideration  of  ap- 
propriation bills;  we  have  rules  under  which  bills  coming  before 
Congress  are  referred  to  different  committees.  The  proposition 
involving,  for  instance,  authority  to  construct  a  new  lighthouse 
goes  to  the  Committee  on  Interstate  and  Foreign  Commerce ;  an  ap- 
propriation for  the  construction  of  a  new  lighthouse  comes  through 
the  Committee  on  Appropriations;  and  although  I  have  labored  for 
years  to  teach  the  old  Lighthouse  Board  and  the  present  lighthouse 
commissioner  the  fact  that  they  ought  always  to  keep  in  mind  the 
separate  jurisdiction  of  those  committees,  they  do  not  know  the  dis- 
tinction yet,  and  probably  never  will  learn  it.  The  same  is  true  of 
every  department  of  the  Government.  It  makes  a  great  deal  of 
trouble  and  often  defeats  what  they  wish.  It  is  a  constant  ex- 
perience in  the  House  that  departments  which  wish  some  new  au- 
thority put  it  in  the  estimates  of  appropriations.  Those  estimates 
are  sent  to  the  Committee  on  Appropriations  which  has  no  juris- 
diction on  the  subject,  there  being  no  authority  of  law  for  the  making 
of  such  an  appropriation,  and  they  having  no  authority  to  recom- 
mend an  appropriation  unless  it  is  authorized  by  law,  whereas  if 
the  departments  would  recognize  the  distinctions  of  jurisdiction  as 
laid  down  b}^  the  rules  they  would  properly  address  their  requests 
so  that  they  would  be  referred  to  the  proper  committees. 

A  few  years  ago — I  hope  I  won't  become  too  garrulous — I  became 
interested  in  the  subject  of  excluding  smoking  opium  from  the  coun- 
try. A  gentleman  connected  with  tlie  Department  of  State  brought 
me  a  bill  to  introduce,  having  prepared  it  partly  at  my  request  and 


CONGRESSIONAL   EEFEKENCE   BUREAU.  61 

partly  at  his  own  suggestion.  I  am  so  constituted  that  I  dislike  to 
examine  any  bill  until  it  is  in  bill  form  and  very  rarely  look  at  a 
typewritten  copy  that  I  do  not  prepare  myself.  I  introduced  that 
bill.  It  had  been  prepared  after  the  plan  of  Canadian  laws  and  our 
jurisdiction  is  quite  different  than  the  Canadian  Parliament.  I 
had  a  hearing  upon  the  bill  in  the  committee  and  the  hearing  had 
not  proceeded,  I  think,  more  than  two  minutes  before  some  of  the 
very  bright  men  on  our  committee  discovered  that  we  had  absolutely 
no  jurisdiction  over  most  of  the  features  of  the  bill.  I  called  atten- 
tion of  the  State  Department  to  the  fact  and  asked  them  if  they 
would  not  draw  a  bill  that  would  at  least  be  constitutional.  The  bill 
was  brought  to  me  a  second  time.  I  asked  whether  the  head  of  the 
department  had  passed  upon  it  and  was  given — I  will  not  say  I  was 
"  given  to  understand  " — I  understood,  however,  that  he  had,  and  I 
looked  at  that  bill,  and  it  was  equally  bad  with  the  first  one.  I  then 
tried  my  own  hand  at  preparing  a  bill,  and  while  I  was  not  fully 
convinced,  afterwards,  that  Mr.  Payne,  of  New  York,  was  correct, 
I  was  not  convinced  that  he  was  incorrect  when  he  found  that  just  as 
full  of  holes  as  I  had  found  the  other.     [Laughter.] 

I  do  not  know  whether  a  congressional  adviser  would  have  pre- 
pared a  bill  in  proper  form  or  not.  It  is  quite  likely  that  a  force  of 
men  who  were  in  the  habit  of  preparing  bills  and  picking  out  the 
flaw^s  in  propositions  would  have  drawn  a  bill  properly. 

I  do  not  loiow  whether  the  adviser  should  be  under  the  control  of 
the  Librarian  of  Congress.  I  have  considerable  doubt  whether  an 
adviser  to  committees  should  not  be  appointed  directly  by  the  House 
itself. 

The  Chairman.  An  advisory  committee? 

Mr.  Mann.  An  adviser  to  the  committee. 

The  Chairman.  Oh,  yes. 

Mr.  Mann.  If  it  could  be  understood  that  such  a  person  would 
not  change  with  a  change  of  parties  in  the  House,  where  the  work 
was  satisfactory.  Of  course,  it  often  happens  that  confidential  work 
is  done  by  committees  in  the  House,  and  a  committee  would  want  to 
know  that  the  man  who  was  advising  as  to  form  would  not  disclose 
the  information.  When  I  was  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  In- 
terstate Commerce  in  the  House  and  the  last  railroad  bill  was  up  for 
consideration — possibly  giving  a  little  experience  would  be  of  some 
value — I  had  myself  asked  the  President  that  the  Attorney  General 
should  put  in  concrete  form  certain  recommendations  of  various  com- 
mercial organizations  for  amending  the  railroad  law  or  the  com- 
merce act.  That  Avas  done.  I  believe  Brother  Nelson  and  some  of 
the  other  gentlemen  criticized  them  for  doing  it,  but  I  thought  it  w^as 
proper.  That  form  was  presented  to  me,  or  the  draft  of  that.  I  did 
not  entirely  agree  with  the  propositions  in  it,  even  in  the  concrete 
form,  and  I  drafted  a  bill  of  my  own.  In  drafting  a  bill  of  that  kind 
one  gathers  together  all  the  information  he  can  upon  the  subject, 
and  that  information  will  consist  very  largely  not  only  of  his  knowl- 
edge of  the  principles  involved  but  knowledge  of  all  bills  upon  the 
subject  which  have  been  introduced.  When  that  bill  came  up  in  the 
committee  many  amendments  were  proposed.  We  took  the  method  of 
having  every  amendment  printed  before  it  was  finally  passed  upon 
by  the  committee.  Amendments  were  presented,  printed,  and  laid 
before  the  members  of  the  committee,  and  every  step  that  we  took 


62  CONGRESSIONAL  REFERENCE   BUREAU. 

where  any  change  was  made  in  any  section  of  the  bill  that  section  was 
at  once  printed  with  the  change  which  was  made  and  where  changes 
w^ere  suggested  by  amendments  we  printed  that  section  to  show  the 
section  as  it  was,  to  show  the  laAV  as  it  existed  that  the  section  pro- 
posed to  amend,  and  to  show  the  change  that  would  be  made  by  the 
amendment  that  was  proposed.  In  connection  with  committee  work 
it  is  very  essential  on  important  bills. 

Before  that  bill  came  up  I  had  asked  the  then  district  attorney  of 
Chicago,  Mr.  Sims,  and  the  present  district  attorney  at  Chicago,'Mr. 
AVilkerson,  both  of  whom  were  engaged  more  or  less  in  enforcing 
provisions  of  the  interstate  commerce  act,  to  go  over  various  phases 
of  the  proposed  changes  and  give  me  information  in  regard  to  it. 
Of  course  they  were  not  obliged  to  do  that,  but  both  being  personal 
friends  of  mine  and  having  information  before  them  they  did  that, 
so  that  when  the  bill  came  up  for  consideration  I  had  a  brief  pre- 
pared on  most  of  the  subjects  that  were  in  the  bill.  When  that  bill 
passed  the  House  I  asked  the  Attorney  General  of  the  United  States 
to  detail  Mr.  Wilkerson,  who  was  then  an  acting  Assistant  Attorney 
General,  located  at  Chicago,  to  Washington  under  my  supervision 
and  control;  and,  after  some  question  in  reference  to  it,  that  was 
done.  Mr.  Wilkerson,  coming  here,  made  a  brief  for  me  upon  every 
controverted  proposition  in  the  bill  or  every  proposition  that  was 
likely  to  be  controverted  between  the  House  and  the  Senate — such 
things  as  the  long-and-short-haul  clause — and  various  other  pro- 
visions that  we  had  inserted  in  the  bill.  It  was  invaluable  assistance 
to  me,  knowing  that  probably  I  would  be  at  the  head  of  the 
House  conferees  if  the  bill  went  into  conference  and  while  the  bill 
was  in  conference,  although  certain  gentlemen  in  town  were  here  t( 
aid  the  conferees  in  behalf  of  some  of  the  railroad  companies,  I  die 
not  require  their  assistance,  because  I  had  a  very  competent  man, 
entirely  disinterested,  at  my  service,  who  was  willing  to  -work,  both 
night  and  day,  to  acquire  information  upon  any  proposition  involved 
in  dispute.  A  parliamentary  assistant  or  a  congressional  adviser 
who  can  help  in  matters  of  that  sort  is  invaluable.  Of  course,  in  this 
particular  case,  I  had  secured  a  man  who  was  competent  to  help  me ; 
but  it  is  not  always  ]Dossible  to  do  that. 

I  drew  the  white-slave  law  that  is  upon  the  statutes.  I  asked  these 
same  gentlemen,  in  Chicago — they  having  prosecuted  a  number  of 
white-slave  cases  under  the  old  law,  which  was  declared  unconstitu- 
tional by  the  Supreme  Court — to  give  me  suggestions  in  reference  to 
a  bill  upon  the  subject  under  the  commerce  clause  of  the  Constitution. 
Those  gentlemen  prepared  for  me,  I  think,  three  different  drafts  of 
a  bill,  and  while  I  did  not  use  any  of  them  to  introduce  the  last  draft 
that  was  prepared  for  me,  and  the  others  for  that  matter,  were  be- 
fore me  and,  after  a  stud}^  of  those,  I  prepared  the  bill  that  was 
finally  enacted  different  in  form  from  any  of  the  drafts  which  had 
been  presented,  but  it  would  have  been  very  difficult,  I  think,  for  me, 
or  anyone  else,  to  have  prepared  the  bill  which  was  finally  enacted 
without  the  assistance  of  these  other  gentlemen  in  making  their  sug- 
gestions, bringing  into  the  consideration  of  the  preparation  of  the  bill 
different  minds,  looking  at  the  proposition  at  different  angles.  Every 
committee  of  the  House,  as  a  rule,  refers  bills  that  especially  relate 
to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  different  departments  to  departments  for 
opinions,  and  you  gentlemen  understand  that  I  am  inclined  to  be 


CONGRESSIOISrAL  REFERENCE   BUREAU.  63 

very  insistent  that  a  bill  relating  to  the  public  lands  shall  be  referred 
and  be  reported  upon  by  the  Commissioner  of  Public  Lands  through 
the  Department  of  the  Interior ;  that  bills  relating  to  Indian  affairs 
take  a  similar  course;  and  that  various  bills  that  come  before  the 
committee,  involving  in  any  way  the  jurisdiction  of  different  de- 
partments or  the  work  in  different  departments,  shall  go  to  those 
departments. 

Mr.  Evans.  Mr.  Mann,  may  I  ask  you  a  question  ?  As  far  as  the 
general  purposes  of  this  bill  are  concerned,  I  believe  the  committee 
are  well  agreed,  but  just  how  to  draw  the  bill  itself  without  having 
this  already  established — this  reference  bureau — is  just  now  before 
us.     I  want  to  ask  you  concrete  questions. 

Mr.  Mann.  Just  let  me  finish  my  statement  about  this  other  point. 
I  do  not  wish  the  impression  to  go  into  the  record  that  I  give  too 
much  influence  to  a  report  of  a  department  in  reference  to  a  bill. 
While  I  want  the  reports  of  the  departments  upon  the  bill  I  do  not 
want  them  to  control  me  or  anybody  else.  That  is  simply  for  in- 
formation; that  is  all  any  adviser  can  do — is  to  give  practical  in- 
formation. 

Mr.  Evans.  Do  you  believe  that  it  would  be  advisable  to  have  the 
head  of  this  bureau  appointed  by  the  Speaker  or  Librarian — to  get 
right  down  to  "  brass  tacks  " — or  by  any  other  person  ?  Wliat  would 
be  your  suggestion  ? 

Mr.  IVIann.  Wliichever  way  you  do,  a  matter  of  this  sort  is  neces- 
sarily a  matter  of  growth.  You  can  plant  a  seed  in  the  ground  and 
it  develops  and  comes  into  a  plant,  and  after  while  bursts  into  bloom, 
but  legislation  does  not  proceed  in  that  way.  You  have  got  to  build 
one  thing  upon  another  before  you  attain  any  final  resiilt.  I  do  not 
think  it  is  so  very  important  whether  this  congressional  adviser 
should  be  appointed  by  the  Speaker  or  by  the  Librarian,  in  the  first 
instance,  because  we  shall  soon  ascertain  in  regard  to  that.  I  should 
be  inclined  to  favor  the  appointment  of  such  an  adviser  in  the  first 
instance  by  the  Speaker,  but  it  depends  upon  how  far  it  is  to  go  and 
what  it  is  to  do. 

Mr.  Evans.  "What  you  said  a  moment  ago  is  the  next  thing  we  want 
to  ask  you  about,  in  regard  to  the  confidence  that  you  may  have  or 
any  one  party  may  have  in  some  one  of  this  department  whom  they 
would  employ.  For  that  purpose,  would  you  advise  that  each  party 
in  the  House  have  control  of  a  certain  number  of  appointments 
among  the  assistants  to  the  chief  of  this  bureau,  so  that  you  could 
say,  for  instance,  "  Xow,  so  and  so  is  a  Republican  over  there :  go  and 
get  him  "  ? 

^Ir.  Mann.  Well,  I  should  not  think  that  necessary  at  all.  I  think 
that  any  organization  of  this  sort,  if  it  is  to  be  of  an}^  value,  will  be 
practically  nonpartisan.  I  can  see  no  reason  why  the  minority,  under 
the  theory  that  I  have  in  my  head,  should  have  anything  to  do  with 
having  special  persons  employed,  and  I  do  not  believe  that  in  matters 
of  this  sort  any  majority  in  the  House  would  be  inclined  to  make 
partisan  appointments.  Of  course,  if  that  were  done,  it  would  de- 
strojT^  the  efficiency  of  such  a  service. 

Mr.  Eaans.  Then,  to  what  did  you  refer  when  you  spoke  of  the 
confidence  that  you  would  have  to  have  in  some  one  drawing  these 
bills  that  they  would  not  disclose  the  information  ?  If  not  disclosed 
to  the  opposite  party,  what  had  you  in  mind  ? 


64  CONGRESSIONAL.  EEFEBENCE   BUEEAU. 

Mr.  Mann.  Unless  such  a  party  when  organized  can  be  treated 
■with  absolute  confidence 

Mr.  Evans.  Yes. 

Mr.  Mann.  By  the  majority  party  with  the  power  and  responsi- 
bility and  legislation  will  not  be  effective. 

The  Chairman.  I  understand  what  you  mean — that  it  must  not 
be  bipartisan,  but  should  be  absolutely  nonpartisan,  if  it  is  to  be 
effective. 

Mr.  Mann.  It  should,  certainly;  and  it  should  not  attempt  to  dis- 
pose of  those  matters  which  are  partisan. 

Mr.  Evans.  That  is  the  question  we  had  before  us,  because  we  have 
two  bills,  one  proceeding  on  one  theory 

Mr.  Mann.  I  did  not  know 

Mr.  Evans.  And  one  by  which  each  party  in  the  House  names  so 
many  assistants  to  the  chief  of  the  department. 

Mr.  Mann.  Well,  of  course,  that  is  an  entirely  different  theory. 
Take  the  minority  at  present — oh,  it  might  be  very  comfortable  for 
the  minority  leader  to  have  somebody  who  would  hunt  up  informa- 
tion to  bother  the  majority,  but  I  can  see  no  reason  why  that  should 
be  done.     [Laughter.] 

Mr.  Evans.  You  have  stated  the  case. 

Mr.  Mann.  The  committees  as  a  rule,  outside  of  the  Ways  and 
Means  Committee  in  reporting  a  tariff  bill,  where  necessarily  they 
act  in  a  partisan  capacity  under  the  existing  theory  of  tariff'  legisla- 
tion— as  a  rule  the  committees  are  not  partisan.  Sometimes  the  ma- 
jority members  of  a  committee  may  meet  together  and  agree  upon 
something.  That  usually  comes  through  either  lack  of  experience 
or  uncertainty  in  reference  to  the  proposition;  but  a  committee 
usually,  with  members  from  both  sides,  treat  many  matters  in  confi- 
dence in  the  consideration  of  bills.  They  are  quite  competent  to  do 
that. 

Is  there  any  thing  further,  Mr.  Chairman?  I  have  taken  up  more 
time  than  I  intended. 

The  Chairman.  I  want  to  ask  you  one  question.  It  may  have 
been  asked  by  some  gentleman  during  the  few  minutes  I  was  called 
out.    You  heard  Mr.  Bryce's  speech  yesterday  ? 

Mr.  Mann.  I  did. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  heard  him  tell  about  the  functions  of 
the  parliamentary  counsel,  the  most  important  of  which,  it  seemed 
to  me,  was  the  advice  that  he  was  able  to  give,  speaking  in  the  Eng- 
lish sense  of  the  word,  as  to  the  probable  effect  of  any  proposed  bills, 
what  laws  it  would  repeal,  what  it  would  modify— legal  counsel,  in 
other  words.  Do  you  not  think  that  that  would  be  an  extremely 
desirable  feature  to  have  in  such  a  bureau  as  is  contemplated? 

Mr.  Mann.  Oh,  well,  that  is  necessarily  the  part  of  any  legisla- 
tion, and  every  committee  considers  that.  This  should  be  remem- 
bered in  connection  with  the  English  proposition:  First,  that  their 
situation  is  entirely  different  as  to  the  method  of  legislation:  and, 
second,  that  they  have  comparatively  little  legislating  to  do.  Their 
country  is  not  vast  like  ours;  they  do  not  have  the  problems  of  a 
new  community  like  we  have.  Three-fourths  of  our  laAvs  relate  to 
matters  which  the  English  Government  have  nothing  to  do  with  at 


CONGRESSIONAL,  REFERENCE   BUREAU.  65 

all  or  anything  similar  to  do.  Take,  for  instance,  the  matter  of 
private  bills.  They  have  a  very  simple  method,  but  absolutely 
inapplicable  to  our  country,  owing  to  tKe  extent  of  the  territory.  It 
would  be  quite  silly  to  say  that  somebody  who  wanted  to  construct 
a  bridge  across  a  stream  in  the  State  of  Washington  would  have  to 
send  somebody  down  here  to  appear  before  a  committee  and  make 
an  argument  in  favor  of  it  when  no  one  was  opposed  to  it;  and 
yet  that  is  their  system.  ^ 

Mr.  Nelsox.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  ask  a  question? 

The  Chairman.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Nelson.  In  trying  to  follow  up  the  nonpolitical,  scientific 
idea  of  getting  an  assistant  of  Congress  who  would  help  and  not 
be  swayed  by  partisanship  we  tried  to  figure  out  in  some  way  his 
appointment.  The  Speaker  then  could  not  appoint  without  the 
Senate  having  something  to  say. 

Mr.  Evans.  Why  is  that  necessary  unless  you  are  going  to  con- 
tinue to  play  second  fiddle  to  the  Senate,  as  we  have  for  a  great 
many  years? 

Mr.  Mann.  Well,  of  course,  if  the  body  was  for  the  House  only 
the  Speaker  could  appoint.  If  this  adviser  was  to  be  for  the  House 
and  the  Senate,  of  course,  the  Speaker  could  not  make  the  appoint- 
ment. 

Mr.  Evans.  You  know  the  other  suggestions — they  are  that  the 
Chief  Justice  appoint  and  that  the  President  appoint.  Those  are 
all  the  suggestions  we  have  before  us. 

Mr.  Mann.  I  should  not  be  in  favor  of  the  President  appointing 
or  the  Chief  Justice  appointing,  although  the  President  appoints  the 
Librarian.  I  do  not  think  he  ought  to  appoint;  I  do  not  think  he 
ought  to  rest  under  the  charge  that  at  any  time  he  was  endeavoring 
to  influence  legislation. 

Mr.  Evans.  The  Chief  Justice  ought  not  to  appoint  for  more 
important  reasons. 

Mr.  Mann.  And  he  ought  not  to  appoint  either.  I  will  say  this: 
I  do  not  think  any  Speaker  we  ever  have  known  in  the  House  in 
making  appointments  for  positions  of  this  sort  would  at  all  violate 
the  proprieties  of  the  occasion  any  more  than  in  the  appointment  of 
stenographers  in  the  House. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  want  to  ask  him  another  question,  Mr. 
Nelson  ? 

Mr.  Xelson.  Just  one  other  question.  Could  not  this  be  arranged 
this  way,  Mr.  Mann — I  just  want  to  get  the  practical  worldng  of  it: 
If  the  librarian,  who  is  out  of  politics  and  is  in  a  nonpartisan  posi- 
tion, appoints,  in  the  first  place,  could  not  the  Speaker  designate 
some  one  assistant  out  of  the  corps  of  experts  to  assist  the  House, 
and  some  functionary  in  the  Senate  secure  a  special  expert  to  assist 
the  Senate,  and  in  that  way  work  it  out?  I  just  want  to  get  your 
ideas  on  the  best  method. 

Mr.  Mann.  I  have  a  good  deal  of  doubt  about  the  advisability, 
myself,  of  having  the  House  and  Senate  use  the  same  people. 

The  Chairman.  We  are  much  obliged  to  you,  Mr.  Mann. 

Mr,  Mann.  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  sorry  to  have  detained  you. 

Speaker  Clark.  That  is  all  right. 

40J35— 12 5 


66  CONGRESSIONAL  EEFERENCE   BUREAU. 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  CHAMP  CLARK,  SPEAKER  OF  THE  HOUSE 
OF  REPRESENTATIVES. 

Speaker  Clark.  Mr,  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  the  reason  I  wanted 
Brother  Mann  to  go  ahead  is  because  he  is  an  absolute  master  of 
details,  and  is  one  of  the  ablest  and  most  painstaking  Members  of 
Congress  that  I  have  ever  known.  I  am  in  favor  of  the  principle 
of  this  bill,  because  we  need  experts  to  draw  bills,  and  then  it  would 
be  a  labor-saving  contrivance.  Hunting  up  facts,  and  verifying 
bills  and  collating  data  is  simply  a  work  of  drudgery.  It  may  in- 
volve a  good  deal  of  intelligence,  but,  nevertheless,  that  is  exactly 
what  it  is.  I  know  that  one  time  at  home,  in  my  own  library,  which 
is  a  prety  good  one  for  a  countr}^  place,  I  wanted  to  use  the  exact 
words  of  the  Wilmot  proviso,  because  I  was  writing  an  article  in 
which  I  desired  to  lay  down  this  proposition :  That  Wilmot  made  a 
greater  reputation  out  of  a  fewer  number  of  words  than  any  other 
man  Avho  has  figured  in  American  history.  I  had  something  like 
50  books  in  that  library  which  gave  the  substance  of  the  Wilmot 
proviso.  Of  course,  I  knew  what  the  substance  was  before  I  began. 
It  took  me  a  half  day  to  verif}^  and  get  the  exact  quotation  that  I 
wanted. 

Practice  makes  perfect,  and  men  come  to  be  experts  and  the  experts 
are  the  most  valuable  part  of  society.  Brother  Mann  cited  the  case 
of  Mr.  Courts.  I  do  not  believe  that  any  man  could  be  appointed 
chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Appropriations  that  would  think  of 
dispensing  with  Courts. 

If  Mr.  Hinds  had  not  been  elected  to  Congress  I  would  have  un- 
hesitatingly appointed  him  parliamentary  clerk,  as  it  is  called,  for 
two  reasons :  He  knows  more  about  parliamentary  laAv  than  any  other 
man  in  America,  and  I  had  perfect  confidence  in  his  integrity.  I 
was  really  sorry  when  he  was  nominated  for  Congress,  because  I 
believed  then  we  were  going  to  carry  the  House  and  I  would  be 
elected  Speaker.  ^¥hen  I  found  I  was  going  to  be  elected  I  began 
hunting  up  a  parliamentary  clerk,  because  I  supposed  that  the  par- 
liamentary experts  on  the  Republican  side  Avould  give  me  a  good 
deal  of  trouble,  which  they  have  not  done  and  for  which  I  am  truly 
grateful.  Naturally,  in  making  an  appointment  in  the  first  instance, 
if  you  can  find  a  man  of  your  own  political  complexion,  you  would 
take  him.  So  I  undertook  to  find  out  what  Democrats  in  the  United 
States  had  had  any  considerable  experience  with  the  rules  of  the 
House.  Of  course,  you  could  find  multitudinous  persons  who  had 
had  to  do  with  State  legislatures,  but  that  is  not  at  all  parallel.  I 
could  only  find  two;  one  of  them  was  disqualified  partially  by  his 
physical  condition.  I  inquired  into  the  character  and  habits  of 
Judge  Crisp.  I  knew  him  when  he  was  a  good  deal  younger  here,  in 
my  first  term.  I  found  that  he  was  sober,  that  he  had  been  a  judge 
down  in  (ieorgia  for  a  good  while,  and  I  appointed  him.  Now,  he  is 
rimning  for  Congress  with  pretty  fair  prospects  of  being  nominated, 
as  I  luiderstand  it. 

Mr.  Mann.  He  is  a  good  parliamentary  clerk? 

Speaker  Clark.  Yes ;  he  is  a  most  excellent  one  and  a  very  fine  man. 
If  he  would  take  my  advice— if  he  would  ask — I  would  tell  him  to 
stick  to  this  job  that  he  has,  and  the  chances  are  that  whoever  suc- 
ceeds me  would  appoint  him,  because  he  is  a  most  estimable,  active, 


CONGRESSIONAL.  EEFERENCE   BUREAU.  67 

and  careful,  painstaking  gentleman,  kind,  polite,  and  accommodat- 
ing.   I  think  he  could  be  parliamentary  clerk  as  long  as  he  lives. 

In  addition  to  this,  I  kept  another  employee,  and  that  is  Neal,  the 
Speaker's  messenger;  and  while  no  man  in  this  world  is  indespen- 
sible,  Neal  is  almost  invaluable.  Of  course,  I  had  to  have  faith  in  his 
integrity,  and  I  consulted  Speaker  Cannon  about  it  and  he  said  he 
was  absolutely  reliable.  A  good  many  things  go  on  in  the  Speaker's 
room  which  should  not  be  blazoned  to  the  world — confidential  con- 
versations in  working  for  the  public  good.  He  is  just  as  careful  as 
he  can  be.  Mr.  Speaker  Randall  brought  him  here,  and  every 
Speaker  has  had  him  since,  and  he  told  my  son  one  day,  a  year  or  two 
ago  that  as  long  as  an  old  Member  of  the  House  was  elected  Speaker 
he  did  not  have  much  doubt  about  keeping  his  place;  that  the  only 
fear  that  he  had  was  that  some  brand  new  Member  would  get  elected 
some  day  that  "  did  not  know  Joseph,"  and  that  would  be  the  end 
of  it. 

The  law  provides  that  those  stenographers  over  there  shall  not 
be  discharged  except  for  cause;  and  that  is  a  very  good  provision, 
too.    Nobody  thinks  about  those  men  exercising  any  partisan  feeling. 

As  to  the  matter  of  this  bureau,  I  agree  with  brother  Mann  on 
another  proposition,  that  there  ought  to  be  one  for  the  House  and  one 
for  the  Senate,  if  you  are  going  to  have  one.  I  do  not  want  to  mix 
up  with  the  Senate  in  such  matters.  My  own  judgment  about  it  is 
that  the  manager  of  the  bureau  ought  to  be  appointed  by  the  House 
or  the  Speaker — I  do  not  care  anything  about  appointing  him  my- 
self. He  ought  to  be  responsible  to  the  House.  It  is  the  business  of 
the  House.  I  would  not  think  for  a  minute  of  allowing  the  President 
or  the  Chief  Justice  to  appoint  him.  That  would  be  out  of  the  ques- 
tion and  surely  he  ought  to  be  appointed  by  either  the  House  or  the 
Librarian  of  Congress. 

I  have  had  19  years'  experience  in  legislative  bodies- — 17  in  the 
House  and  2  in  the  Missouri  Legislature.  The  power  of  accurate 
definition  is  one  of  the  severest  tests  of  a  well-trained  mind.  There 
is  no  question  about  that  in  the  world.  Take  a  man  who  has  an 
idea  of  a  law  on  a  certain  subject,  but  without  the  power  of  accurate 
definition,  and  he  will  draw  it  up  in  such  a  loose  way  that  any  law- 
yer of  ordinary  intelligence  can  pick  it  to  pieces  in  court.  There  is 
no  sense  in  passing  that  sort  of  a  law.  Six  or  eight  years  ago  there 
was  one  committee  in  the  House  which  had  a  great  many  bills,  which 
drew  them  in  a  very  slovenly  manner,  and  I  fell  afoul  of  one  of 
them  one  day  and  made  25  verbal  changes  in  that  one  bill.  Every- 
body agreed  to  the  amendments  as  soon  as  I  would  suggest  them  for 
the  purpose  of  clearing  up  the  obscurities  of  the  language.  Some 
people's  minds  are  muddled  anyway.  I  got  started  on  that  com- 
mittee on  that  bill,  and  for  three  or  four  months  I  made  it  my  habit 
just  simply  to  pick  their  bills  when  they  come  in  and  go  after  them 
about  these  obscurities. 

A  bureau  of  this  sort  properly  conducted  would  be  of  very  great 
value  to  Members  of  the  House.  They  should  do  what  a  lawyer 
does,  make  up  the  briefs;  and  the  division  of  labor  has  come  to  be 
one  of  the  greatest  features  of  our  civilization. 

There  was  a  very  bright  young  man  from  my  congressional  dis- 
trict who  graduated  at  the  Harvard  Law  School,  and  then  went  to 
New  York  and  there  was  very  lucky  in  getting  employment  at  $1,500 


68  COisTGHESSIONAL.  REFERENCE   BUREAU. 

a  year,  Ayhich  was  a  vei\y  good  start  for  a  youngster,  in  one  of  the 
biggest  law  offices  in  New  York.  In  two  or  three  years  they  raised 
Kis  salary  to  $2,000,  and  in  two  more  years  to  $2,500;  and,  very  much 
to  my  surprise,  he  resigned  from  that  place  and  set  up  a  practice  for 
himself.  I  asked  him  one  day  wliat  made  him  do  it.  He  said  they 
turned  over  to  him  all  that  big  firm's  negotiable  paper.  That  was 
his  sole  business;  that  was  all  he  had  to  do;  and  that  he  might  stay 
there  for  40  years  under  that  arrangement  and  not  be  fit  to  be  a  gen- 
eral practitioner. 

Take  the  most  active  Member  in  the  House,  and  he  gets  to  be  a 
sort  of  an  expert  in  his  own  committee  work — Mr.  Sherley,  for  in- 
stance, and  members  of  the  Appropriations  Committee.  I  would  be 
very  much  puzzled  if  somebody  asked  me  to  draw  an  appropriation 
bill,  but  two  years  ago,  when  tlie  same  was  fresh  in  my  mind,  I  would 
not  have  had  any  hesitancy  whatever  in  sitting  down  at  a  table  Avith 
the  books  I  could  gather  and  draw  a  tariff  bill  there  for  any  one  of  the 
14  schedules,  or  one  for  the  entire  14,  with  some  hope  of  the  people 
considering  it  a  consistent  or  symmetrical  bill,  because  I  had  studied 
about  that  thing  so  long  that  I  had  all  the  facts  and  figures  at  hand. 
So  that  the  valuable  legislator  comes  to  be  an  expert.  My  judgment 
about  it  is  that  the  men  in  this  bureau,  if  established,  would  soon 
get  to  be  experts  in  the  drawing  of  bills  and  in  the  collating  of  the 
precedents  about  the  bills  and  so  on,  and  relieve  the  Members  of  the 
House  of  a  vast  amount  of  work.  For  those  reasons,  I  am  in  favor 
of  some  kind  of  a  bureau  of  this  description. 

Mr.  Evans.  You  then  would  believe  that  the  head  of  the  bureau 
should  be  a  man  of  experience  as  a  lawyer  and  of  legislative  expe- 
rience, if  possible,  and  what  is  called  a  high-priced  man? 

Speaker  Clark.  Why,  certainly  I  do.  If  you  are  not  going  to 
have  that  kind  of  a  man  you  had  just  as  well  not  have  the  bureau 
at  all. 

Mr.  Evans.  We  have  bills  here  presented  to  us  for  low-priced  men. 

Speaker  Clark.  Oh,  once  in  awhile  you  come  across  a  man  of  the 
very  highest  capacity  who  is  so  in  love  Avith  the  particular  kind  of 
work  that  he  will  -work  at  it  for  the  love  of  the  thing.  Mr.  Dill,  a 
laAvyer  in  New  Jersey,  who  made  a  million  dollars  out  of  draAving 
corporation  papers,  who  had  an  enormous  practice,  and  Avho  made 
$100,000,  $200,000,  $300,000,  or  $400,000  a  year,  deliberately  gave  up 
that  Avork  to  accept  a  judgeship  in  New  Jersey  that  only  paid  him 
$10,000  a  year.  That  Avas  because  he  loA^ed  the  work  he  was  going 
into.  My  own  opinion  about  it  is  that  the  cheapest  man  you  can  get 
is  the  most  expert  one,  and,  so  far  as  the  politics  of  it  is  concerned,  it 
ought  to  be  absolutely  diA^orced  from  politics. 

Mr.  Ea'ans.  The  point  you  raised,  I  should  appreciate,  is  that  if 
that  man  is  to  be  paid  a  salary,  of  $10,000  a  year  there  Avill  be  a  fight 
OA^er  in  that  House  on  that  proposition  so  sure  as  Ave  report  it. 

Speaker  Clark.  I  Avould  not  pay  him  any  $10,000  a  year.  I  do 
not  think  anybody  around  here  ought  to  be  paid  more  than  a  Mem- 
ber of  Congress  is  paid  except  the  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  and 
the  President. 

Mr.  Evans.  I  do  not  know  as  you  can  get  that  ability  for  less,  if 
it  has  not  the  honor  attached  to  it  that  is  to  being  a  Member  of 
Congress. 

Speaker  Clark.  I  am  not  sure  whether  that  is  true  or  not. 


CONGRESSIONAL,  REFERENCE   BUREAU.  69 

Mr.  Evans.  I  do  not  believe  the  salary  brings  anybody  here. 

Speaker  Clark.  Salaries  do  not  bring  most  of  the  Congressmen 
here. 

Mr.  Mann.  Mr.  Speaker,  is  it  not  true  that  whoever  they  get  for 
this  work  will  have  to  be  trained  in  the  work? 

Speaker  Clark.  Why,  certainly  he  will. 

Mr.  Mann.  There  is  no  one — you  could  not  employ  anybody  in 
the  United  States  to-day  that  I  know  of  who  could  start  in  and 
be  qualified  without  considerable  training. 

Speaker  Clakk.  No;  but  I  can  pick  out  five  or  six  men  in  the 
House,  if  they  would  accept  the  place,  who  would  soon  develop  into 
experts  sure  enough.  Of  course  I  would  not  think  of  taking  Brother 
Mann  out  of  the  House,  but  he  is  qualified  right  now.  [Laughter.] 
And  if  you  could  get  Mr.  Hinds  to  turn  his  mind  onto  this  kind  of  a 
thing  instead  of  parliamentary  procedure,  he  would  soon  become  an 
expert;  and  I  can  name  a  dozen  others  who  would  become  experts; 
and  this  business  is  a  very  rare  kind  of  business. 

I  have  to  go  now,  because  I  have  another  engagement. 

The  Chairman.  AYe  are  very  much  obliged  to  you. 

Mr.  Xelson.  Mr.  Sherley,  who  has  an  appropriation  bill  on  hand, 
is  here,  and  I  would  like  to  have  him  say  something  before  he  has 
to  go. 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  SWAGAR  SHERLEY,  MEMBER  OF  CONGRESS 

FROM  KENTUCKY. 

Mr.  Sherley.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  unfortunately  did  not  hear  the 
testimony  before  the  committee  yesterday,  and  so  do  not  know  just 
what  range  it  took,  and  may  omit  some  matters  the  committee  is  in- 
terested in  and  also  duplicate  some  that  have  been  discussed.  Per- 
haps it  is  needless  to  say  to  this  committee  that  all  of  us  having  had 
any  experience  in  legislative  Avork  realize  the  need  for  some  agency 
of  some  sort  to  help  Congress  in  its  now  multifarious  duties.  It  was 
my  lot,  along  with  other  members  on  the  joint  committee  of  the  House 
and  the  Senate  to  codify  all  of  the  penal  laws  of  the  United  States 
and  to  also  codify  what  is  known  as  the  judicial  title.  Xo  man  could 
have  gone  through  that  work  without  being  impressed  with  the  ab- 
sence of  any  scientific  method  in  the  wording  of  statutes:  with  the 
frequent  repetition  of  matters;  with  statutes  enacted  in  direct  con- 
flict with  existing  earlier  statutes,  and  yet  without  any  desire  or 
knowledge  on  the  part  of  the  makers  of  the  later  statute  of  having 
repealed  or  modified  the  previous  one.  I  was  so  much  impressed 
with  that  situation  that  I  introduced  a  resolution  in  the  House  some 
years  ago  and  reintroduced  it  at  this  session,  authorizing  the  Speaker 
to  appoint  a  clerk  that  should  correspond  to  substantive  law  as  the 
parliamentary  clerk  does  to  the  parliamentary  law.  Xow,  it  seems  to 
me  from  what  little  of  the  discussion  I  have  heard  to-day.  that  there 
are  ideas  embodied  in  these  various  bills  that  present  somewhat  dif- 
ferent considerations. 

One  is  the  idea  of  such  a  clerk  who  shall  aid  Congress  in  the  forma- 
tion of  the  language  of  statutes;  who  shall  be  an  expert  on  form. 
The  other  is  a  reference  bureau  that  shall  gather  together  for  the 
use  of  Congress  and  its  membership  information  on  A-arious  subjects 
that  are  to  be  legislated  on.  While  those  two  objects  merge,  they  yet 
represent  somewhat  different  matters  that  should  be  treated  some- 


70  CONGRESSIONAL  REFEEENCE   BUREAU. 

what  in  a  different  way.  As  to  the  reference  bureau,  there  should  be 
no  great  difficulty.  You  simply  want  here  a  corps  of  men  sufficiently 
trained  to  give  to  Congress,  or  to  a  proper  number  of  Members  on 
request,  data  touching  any  particular  question.  In  a  sense  the 
Library  of  Congress  is  supposed  to  supply  that  thing  now.  Prac- 
ticalh'  it  does  not  supplj^^  it  at  all.  It  may  be  somewhat  the  fault  of 
Congress  and  the  Members  of  Congress,  but  by  having  a  small  corps 
of  men,  whose  duties  pertain  only  to  the  demands  of  Congress,  I 
think  you  could  create  a  body  that  could  gather  together  data — could 
be  not  the  mind  of  Congress,  but,  so  to  speak,  the  hands  and  the  eyes 
and  the  ears  of  Congress,  because  all  of  us,  as  our  work  increases 
Avith  longer  tenure,  realize  the  impossibility  of  making  the  investiga- 
tion that  we  would  like  to  do  before  coming  to  a  conclusion.  No  one 
desires  to  have  Congress  have  some  other  body  doing  its  thinking, 
but  all  of  us  would  like  to  have  the  data  collected  that  would  enable 
us  to  arrive  at  better  conclusions. 

Mr.  TcwNSEND.  May  I  interrupt  a  moment?  That  is  a  point  I  am 
ver}^  much  interested  in.  Does  this  provision  satisfy  you  on  that 
point — it  is  section  4  of  the  bill,  page  2  ?    I  will  read  it  [reading]  : 

That  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  said  bureau  to  gather,  classify,  and  make 
available    in    translations,    indexes,    digests,    compilations,    and   bulletins,    and . 
otherwise,    data    for    or   bearing    upon    legislation,    and    to    render    such    data 
serviceable  to  Congress. 

Mr.  Sherley.  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  language  is  compre- 
hensible enough,  but  I  think  this  is  apparent :  You  are  not  going  to 
be  able,  by  any  law  that  you  pass  here,  to  properly  define  the  duties 
of  any  such  body.  It  is  going  to  be  a  matter  of  growth,  and  I  do 
not  give  a  "  rap,"  if  I  may  use  the  expression,  for  the  particular  lan- 
guage creating  the  corps,  provided  it  is  created  with  enough  leeway 
to  do  the  work  that  shall  develop  jfrom  year  to  year.  It  is  absolutely 
impossible  for  us  here  to  so  forecast  the  future  as  to  write  into  rigid 
law  the  limitations  on  a  reference  body  of  this  kind.  Create  it — 
create  it  of  men  that  shall  be  competent,  and  forget  the  politics 
of  it.  I  do  not  care  whether  every  one  of  them  are  supposedly  Re- 
publicans or  supposedly  Democrats,  provided  they  are  men  of  such 
type  of  mind  as  will  make  them  seek  the  truth  and  give  the  truth  to 
Congress,  and  the  idea  of  having  a  bipartisan  commission  is,  to  my 
mind,  fatally  defective.  The  very  moment  you  classify  the  member- 
ship of  such  a  corps  by  political  designation  that  moment  yoli  appeal 
to  the  partisan  spirit  of  the  two  sides  in  Congress  to  use  the  men  of 
their  persuasion  in  that  corps  to  offset  any  contention  that  may  be 
made  by  members  of  the  opposite  political  party,  and  if  the  corps 
is  to  be'of  the  slightest  value  on  earth  it  must  stand  forth  as  a  non- 
partisan body,  presenting  simply  information  and  not  conclusions. 
We  do  not  want  a  body  that  will  find  for  Congress  conclusions,  ay 
such,  in  my  judgment.  You  want  a  body  that  will  classify  and 
digest  and  bring  in  a  practicable,  usable  form  the  information  that 
we,  as  individuals,  have  not  the  time  and  sometimes  not  the  talent 
to  gather. 

Mr.  TowNSEND.  Or  opportunity. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Sherley,  you  say  you  did  not  hear  the  discus- 
sion yesterday.  That  discussion  contained  precisely  the  two  ideas  you 
now  "submit— that  is,  for  the  form  and  then  for  the  preparation  of 


CONGRESSIONAL  REFERENCE   BUREAU.  71 

data  for  the  information  and  not  for  conclusion.  Those  are  the  two 
general  conclusions  that  have  been  covered  by  everybody  here. 

Mr.  Sherley.  As  to  the  form  of  legislation,  it  seems  to  me  that  at 
least  one  man  should  be  on  the  floor  of  the  House  during  sessions, 
and  always  subject  to  call  of  committees  that  are  reporting  bills,  or 
conference  committees,  that  we  may  establish  a  proper,  clear  form 
for  the  law.  after  the  policy  that  the  law  is  to  indicate  has  been 
agreed  upon.  For  instance,  it  happened  yesterday  on  the  fortification 
bill,  and  will  probably  happen  to-day,  the  offering  of  an  amendment 
by  a  gentleman  to  the  bill.  He  is  desirous  of  accomplishing  a  par- 
ticular thing.  The  House  may  or  may  not  agree  with  that,  but  cer- 
tainly if  the  House  agreed  to  it  it  ought  to  want  the  accomplishment 
of  that  particular  thing  to  be  worded  in  language  that  would  leave 
no  question  of  doubt,  but  in  the  hurry  of  preparation  on  the  floor 
that  is  almost  impossible.  Now,  you  could  gradually  train  a  man 
to  be  something  of  a  "  wing  shot  "  in  work  of  this  kind.  It  is  surprising 
how  my  little  Avork  of  codification  taught  me  the  use  of  certain 
phrases,  and  unconsciously  I  use  those  phrases  where  they  are  appli- 
cable. The  same  thing  would  happen  to  a  man  who  was  in  this  ref- 
erence bureau,  just  as  we  realize  the  wonderful  expertness  that  Mr. 
Hinds  had  as  parliamentary  clerk  and  that  Mr.  Crisp  now  has. 

Such  a  man  could  aid  Congress  during  its  session  simply  by  en- 
abling a  Member  who  wanted  to  offer  a  resolution  to  submit  it  to 
such  officer,  and  he  could  indicate,  frequently  in  a  moment  or  two, 
what  some  of  us  sometimes  do  on  the  floor,  the  changes  that  ought 
to  be  made  in  order  to  make  it  clear. 

I  have  tried  to  think  of  some  process  by  which  we  could,  before 
a  law  became  final,  submit  it  to  a  committee,  so  to  speak,  on  "style," 
but  I  have  seen  no  plan  that  is  practicable.  I  wish  that  such  a  plan 
was  possible  under  our  system  of  Government. 

Mr.  Nelson.  May  I  interrupt  to  ask  a  question? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Nelson,  I  would  simply  say  that  that  point  was  what  I  tried 
to  cover  in  the  bill,  by  saying:  "That  space  and  equipment  for  the 
bureau  shall  be  provided  in  the  Library  Building,  in  addition  to  such 
space  and  equipment  as  may  be  desirable  in  the  Capitol  and  Senate 
and  House  Office  Buildings,"  thinking  that  the  branches  of  the  refer- 
ence bureau  and  the  representatives  of  the  drafting  department 
ought  to  be  in  each  branch  at  once  available  for  Congress  instantly. 

The  Chairman.  At  hand? 

Mr.  Nelson,  At  hand,  but  in  connection  with  the  main  branch  in 
the  Library,  so  that  there  would  not  be  the  duplication,  because 
what  affects  one  branch  would  have  to  be  used  in  the  other  on  the 
same  bill,  perhaps. 

Mr.  Sherley.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  more  particularly  concerned 
in  the  reform  of  the  form  of  our  law  than  I  am  in  the  reference 
bureau,  although  that  may  not  seem  a  proper  position.  I  realize 
the  need  of  greater  information  on  the  part  of  Congress  before  it 
legislates,  but  I  realize  more  than  that  the  absolute  necessity  of  so 
wording  statutes  that  they  shall  be  understandable.  Half  of  the 
attacks  that  are  directed  against  the  courts  of  the  land  to-day  are 
made  possible  because  of  the  crudity  of  the  laws  that  are  sent  into 
the  courts  for  adjudication  and  consideration.    Practically  everj''  in- 


72  CONGRESSIONAL  REFERENCE   BUREAU. 

stance  where  a  court  has  been  accused  of  writing  something  into  the 
law,  is  a  case  where  the  legishxture  has  crudely  and  inadequately  ex- 
pressed a  purpose,  and  unless  we  can  do  something  to  make  the 
expression  more  accurate  under  our  system  of  Government,  we  are 
going  to  more  and  more  throw  upon  the  court  the  onerous  duty,  and 
at  times  the  unpopular  duty,  of  d.eclaring  what  a  law  is  or  rather 
what  it  is  not,  and  thereby  bringing  upon  it  the  odium  of  the 
thoughtless,  who,  assuming  that  a  law  means  something  when  it  does 
not  mean  it,  or  has  not  said  it  clearly,  think  that  the  court  in  de- 
ciding otherwise  has  usurped  the  function  of  the  legislative  branch. 
And,  therefore,  I  am  particularly  desirous  that  whatever  program 
mRj  be  suggested  shall  carry  with  it  the  idea  of  having  some  one 
man,  or  a  corps  of  men,  whose  duty  it  shall  primarily  be,  perhaps, 
exclusively  be,  to  aid  Congress  in  the  form  of  its  law;  and  while  I 
am  in  accord  with  the  idea  of  having  also  a  corps  that  shall  aid  us 
in  information  and  in  gathering  facts  for  the  use  of  Congress,  the 
other  is,  to  my  mind,  very  much  more  important.  One  of  the  dis- 
graces of  the  legal  profession  of  the  country  is  that  half  the  litiga- 
tion is  because  of  the  crudity  of  wording  of  statutes,  and  nearly  the 
other  half  is  due  to  the  ignorance  of  members  of  the  legal  profession 
in  the  use  of  the  tools  of  their  trade;  in  other  words,  in  procedure 
and  the  rights  that  their  clients  have  under  the  law  as  established. 
That  is  a  reproach  to  our  civilization,  and  something  ought  to  be 
done  looking  to  correct  the  one  branch  of  it  that  we  are  in  a  sense 
responsible  for. 

I  have  not  examined  in  detail  these  bills,  and  had  no  opportunity 
to  do  it,  being  very  busy  in  appropriation  work,  but  I  should  hope 
that  this  committee  will  see  fit  to  report  some  measure  carrying  out 
these  ideas. 

If  there  is  any  particular  matter  that  I  can  express  an  opinion  on 
for  the  benefit  of  the  committee  I  will  be  very  glad  to  do  it ;  other- 
wise, I  thank  you  for  the  opportunity. 

The  Chairman.  We  are  very  much  obliged  to  you. 

Mr.  Nelson.  Mr.  Chairman,  there  are  two  heads  of  depart- 
ments  

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Nelson,  permit  me  to  suggest,  before  you  call 
another  witness  that  the  committee  has  other  engagements,  and  it 
should  be  on  the  floor  of  the  House  at  noon,  and  there  are  other 
committee  hearings  ahead;  and  with  every  desire  to  hear  these  gen- 
tlemen just  as  elaborately  as  they  would  care  to  speak,  it  is  hardly 
practicable  to  do  so,  and  if  they  can  condense  their  remarks  into  a 
comparatively  brief  space  of  time  it  would  be  a  desirable  thing  to 
do.     I  think  I  voice  the  sentiment  of  the  committee  in  that. 

Mr.  Nelson.  I  shall  ask,  then,  that  the  speakers  Avill  limit  them- 
selves to  10  minutes  and  that  will  give  us  30  minutes  before  1-2  o'clock. 

The  Chairman.  Very  well. 

Mr.  Nelson.  I  would  like  to  hear  from  Mr.  E.  Dana  Durand, 
Director  of  the  Census,  who  I  believe  Avas  trained  in  one  of  these 
reference  bureaus  somewhat,  and  who  can  make  this  point  clear, 
which  I  have  thought  very  important:  That  the  vast  resources  of  in- 
formation at  hand  in  these  departments  might,  through  a  clearing- 
house idea  like  this  reference  bureau,  be  at  our  service  without  any 
expenditure  of  energy  or  time,  and  I  would  like  to  have  Mr.  Durand 
and  Mr.  Neal  talk  on  that  subject. 


CONGRESSIONAL  REFERENCE   BUREAU.  73 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  E.  DANA  DURAND,  DIRECTOR  OF  THE 
UNITED  STATES  CENSUS. 

Mr.  DuRAND.  Mr.  Chairman  and  members  of  the  committee,  as 
has  been  suggested,  I  had  at  one  time  some  experience  in  work  of 
this  character  in  Albany,  where  the  plan  of  collecting  information 
for  convenience  of  the  legislature  had  recently  then  been  introduced. 
I  may  say  that  it  was  such  a  new  plan  that  it  did  not  cover  any- 
thing like  as  wide  a  field  as  it  now  does  or  as  is  proposed  in  this  bill. 
The  main  function  at  that  time  was  making  a  complete  index  of  the 
statutes  passed  each  year  by  the  various  States  in  order  that  the 
Legislature  of  the  State  of  Is'ew  York — and  for  that  matter  others, 
for  we  published  the  results — would  have  a  way  of  finding  out  what 
had  been  done  on  each  particular  subject. 

The  index  stated  the  substance  of  the  legislation  but  of  necessity 
in  such  brief  form  that  it  would  be  quite  necessary  for  one  who 
wanted  to  know  thoroughly  what  was  going  on  to  look  up  the  full 
statutes,  but  it  was  at  least  an  index  by  which  the  information  could 
readily  be  found. 

Aside  from  the  desirability,  in  my  opinion,  of  similarly  indexing 
the  most  important  legislation- — not  necessarily  all  of  the  legisla- 
tion— of  the  leading  foreign  countries,  and  aside  from  other,  it 
has  seemed  to  me  functions  that  such  a  proposed  bureau  could 
perform  could  be  very  useful  to  Members  of  Congress  in  enabling 
them  to  get  promptly  and  fully  the  information  Avhich  is  already 
available  in  the  posesssion  of  the  different  Government  departments 
in  their  reports  and  in  their  files. 

The  departments  and  bureaus  of  the  Government  are  somewhat 
intricate  in  organization.  One  can  not  always  be  sure,  from  the 
mere  n-ame  of  a  bureau,  just  what  subjects  it  covers  and  what  differ- 
ent classes  of  information  it  may  possess,  and  Members  of  Congress 
and  others  are  very  much  at  a  loss  often  to  know  where  to  get  infor- 
mation on  a  subject,  although  they  know  that  that  information  prob- 
ably exists  in  some  bureau. 

At  the  Census  Bureau  we  get  from  Members  of  Congress  practi- 
cally every  day  requests,  sometimes  for  information  for  their  own 
personal  use  in  connection  with  legislation,  in  other  cases  merely  for 
the  convenience  of  their  constituents.  Frequently  these  requests  are 
for  information  which  our  bureau  does  not  possess,  but  which  the 
Member  of  Congress  assumes  that  we  probably  do  possess  or  can  re- 
fer him  to.  We  have  requests  for  information  that  ought  to  go  to 
the  Bureau  of  Labor  or  Bureau  of  Statistics  or  Bureau  of  Manufac- 
tures or  to  the  Geological  Survey  or  to  the  Department  of  Agricul- 
ture— all  coming  to  us.  We  either  look  up  the  information  from  the 
reports  of  the  proper  bureau  as  best  Ave  can  or  more  often  we  refer 
the  Congressman  to  the  proper  bureau. 

Now.  that  wastes  time,  and  if,  perchance,  we  do  not  happen  to 
know — and  we  do  not  pretend  to  be  infallible — where  that  informa- 
tion exists  we  may  make  incorrect  reference  or  may  suggest  that  the 
information  does  not  exist  when  it  does  exist. 

It  seems  to  me  that  an  organization  of  the  sort  that  is  proposed  in 
this  bill  could  keep  an  index — not  an  exceedingly  detailed  index,  but 


74  CONGRESSIONAL  REFERENCE   BUREAU. 

an  index  of  main  subjects^ — of  each  of  the  reports  issued  by  Govern- 
ment departments  and  bureaus,  and  also  more  or  less  of  an  index  of 
the  current  activities  of  each  of  the  bureaus,  not  yet  appearing  in 
their  published  reports.  It  would  then  be  in  position,  when  any 
question  arose  as  to  information  likely  to  be  possessed  by  the  Gov- 
ernment, to  refer  at  once  to  the  proper  bureau.  It  is,  of  course,  de- 
sirable that  so  far  as  possible  such  information  should  be  actually  in 
the  possession  of  this  legislative  bureau,  so  that  it  could  be  at  once 
handed  out  to  the  person  inquiring ;  but  that  is  less  important  on  the 
whole  than  merely  knowing  where  it  exists ;  having  an  index,  in  other 
words,  of  all  important  information  in  the  hands  of  the  Government 
department.     That  alone,  in  my  opinion,  would  be  of  immense  value. 

Mr.  TowNSEND.  Is  it  not  possible,  Mr.  Durand,  that  they  would 
find  all  of  that  information  in  the  Library,  in  all  these  reports  ? 

Mr,  Durand.  The  great  bulk  of  it  would  be  there  even  now. 

Mr.  ToAVNSEND.  So  that  the  great  majority  of  all  that  data  would 
be  there,  and  that  this  bureau  we  have  reference  to  here  could,  per- 
haps, have  room  in  the  Library  to  collect  that — maybe  in  some  part 
of  the  Library  where  it  would  be  more  than  commonly  available  to 
them. 

Mr.  Durand.  And  it  perhaps  might  go  further.  It  might  take 
some  of  the  reports  of  the  departments  and  bureaus  which  consist 
of  a  large  number  of  separate  subjects  put  together  in  one  volume, 
and  tear  the  volume  apart  and  subdivide  it  and  put  the  sections  in  a 
proper  subject  file  which  could  easily  be  gotten  at.  I  feel  sure  that 
in  various  ways  such  a  bureau  could  make  the  existing  governmental 
information  much  more  available. 

Besides  that,  it  could  collect  valuable  information  from  sources 
outside  of  the  Government,  or  at  least  familiarize  itself  with  the 
sources  of  such  information,  so  that  it  could  promptly  refer  to  it  and 
compile  it  in  the  way  and  along  the  line  which  the  Members  should 
desire. 

I  speak  of  this  Avith  some  feeling  of  enthusiasm,  because  we  in  the 
Census  Bureau  here  are  called  upon  so  much  to  give  information  and 
we  can  do  it  so  inadequately.  I  feel  sure  that  a  body  which  had  more 
time  for  doing  such  work  than  we  have  and  which  had  a  more  widely 
trained  corps  of  specialists  could  be  of  much  more  assistance  to  Con- 
gress than  we  can,  even  along  the  lines  of  inquiry  that  now  come  to 
us.  Of  course  there  are  a  great  many  interrogatories  that  do  not 
come  to  the  Census  Bureau  at  all,  but  which  go  to  other  bureaus  and 
departments,  which  again  could  be  probably  handled  much  more 
expeditiously  and  satisfactorily  through  an  organization  of  this  sort. 
It  could  become,  as  has  been  suggested,  a  kind  of  clearing  house  for 
the  great  mass  of  information  that  exists  in  scattered  form  in  the 
Government  service  already. 

I  think  that  is  all,  unless  somebody  has  some  questions. 

The  Chairman.  We  are  much  obliged  to  you,  Mr.  Durand. 

Mr.  Nelson.  I  would  like 

Mr.  Evans.  I  desire  to  thank  Mr.  Durand  for  telling  us  what  he 
has  said  in  such  a  condensed  manner. 

Mr.  Nelson.  I  should  now  like  to  present  the  Commissioner  of 
Labor,  Mr.  Neill,  who  has  also  kindly  consented  to  speak. 


CONGRESSIONAL.  REFERENCE   BUREAU.  75 

STATEMENT  BY  HON.  CHARLES  P.  NEILL,  COMMISSIONER  OF  THE 
BUREAU  OF  LABOR. 

Mr.  Neiix.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  can  only  supplement  what  Mr.  Du- 
rand  has  said.  We  have  a  precisely  similar  experience.  I  might 
classify  my  experience  under  three  heads :  Frequently  we  get  letters 
and  not  infrequently  personal  calls  from  Members  of  Congress  or 
the  representatives  of  a  committee  interested  in  a  bill  or  in  a  report 
looking  for  certain  information.  Now,  only  part  of  the  information 
that  is  needed  in  that  study  for  the  preparation  of  that  bill  or  the 
making  of  that  report  is  in  our  bureau. 

The  Chairman.  May  I  interrupt  you,  Mr.  Xeill,  with  a  question 
right  there  ? 

Mr.  Neill.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Is  it  not  true  that  there  is  considerable  duplica- 
tion of  work  in  the  departments? 

Mr.  Neill.  I  think  there  is  a  very  much  exaggerated  notion  of 
that,  Mr.  Chairman — very  much  exaggerated.  There  are  a  great 
many  topics 

The  Chairman.  That  has  nothing  particularly  to  do  with  this 
hearing,  except  it  adds  a  little  to  the  difficulty  of  getting  information. 

Mr.  Neill.  I  was  going  to  cite  this  case :  For  example,  a  Member 
comes  in  and  he  has  a  certain  bill  or  a  certain  report  in  mind.  It 
may  be  part  of  that  information  would  have  to  be  supplied  by  the 
Census,  part  would  have  to  come  from  tlie  Bureau  cf  Labor-^we 
can  furnish  you  that — and  part  must  come  from  the  Bureau  of  Manu- 
factures. He  does  not  know  where  that  is.  We  attempt  to  help 
him  out,  with  the  feeling  that  he  does  not  know  just  what  he  wants 
out  of  our  bureau.  I  do  not  know  what  he  wants  for  his  bill.  We 
both  of  us  blunder  along  quite  a  while  convinced  that  we  are  both 
wasting  a  good  deal  of  our  time — he  wasting  his  time  and  I  wasting 
my  time. 

At  other  times  I  get  requests  for  information  by  letter,  say.  We 
prepare  information  in  precisely  the  form  that  it  is  asked.  In 
three  or  four  days  later  we  get  another  request  from  some  other 
Member  for  the  same  data  in  a  different  form.  We  found  in  the  first 
form  it  does  not  give  the  information  wanted ;  and  sometimes  two  or 
three  different  requests  come  in  a  period  of  30  or  60  days,  for  almost 
the  same  information,  presented  in  an  entirely  different  way.  Two- 
thirds  of  that  work  has  been  wasted. 

Frequently  we  have  furnished  information,  and  until  I  read  the 
report  I  had  no  adequate  idea  of  what  was  the  purpose  of  the  infor- 
mation or  what  particular  subject  was  under  discussion ;  and  upon 
reading  the  report  realized  that  the  material  used  was  very  in- 
adequate, that  a  much  better  explanation  and  a  much  better  report 
could  have  been  prepared  by  the  use  of  more  full  information  which 
might  have  been  had  right  in  our  library.  I  did  not  know  the  pur- 
pose of  it,  and  even  if  I  had  known  it  I  might  not  have  felt  the  pro- 
priety of  suggesting  that  they  use  it. 

But  my  own  experience  of  six  or  seven  years  has  been  that  a  very 
large  part  of  the  work,  at  least  of  our  own  bureau,  in  fun>isliing  in- 
formation to  Congress  has  been  thoroughlv  unsatisfactorv  to  those 


76  CONGRESSIONAL  REFEEENCE   BUREAU. 

to  whom  it  was  furnished  and  more  unsatisfactory  to  us  in  the 
method  of  furnishing  it,  simply  because  there  was  no  clearing  house. 
Members  have  not  knoAvn  clearl}^  what  we  had;  we  haA-e  not  known 
the  purpose  for  which  the  information  Avas  Avanted ;  and  as  ^\e  have 
blundered  along  a  large  amount  of  work  has  been  expended  Avith 
very  small  percentage  of  it  yielding  actual  return. 

The  Chairman.  We  are  greatly  obliged  to  you,  Mr.  Neill. 

Mr.  Nelson.  Mr.  Chairman,  your  time  is  limited.  Will  you  sit 
this  afternoon  at  all? 

The  committee  and  others  present  here  informally  discussed  the 
plans  for  further  hearings. 

Mr.  Nelson.  I  am  going  to  interrupt  even  a  member  of  the  com- 
mittee just  a  moment,  because  the  gentlemen  have  come  to  serve  us, 
and  I  would  like  to  have  them  given  an  opportunity  to  print  state- 
ments in  the  hearings  along  this  line. 

The  Chairman.  Certainly. 

Mr.  Nelson.  Mr.  Middleton  Beaman.  of  New  York,  Avill  noAv  ad- 
dress the  committee. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  MIDDLETON  BEAMAN,  OF  NEW  YORK. 

Mr.  Beaman,  I  represent  the  same  association  as  does  Dr.  Lewis, 
who  addressed  you  yesterday.  I  haA^e,  perhaps,  a  further  claim  to 
take  up  your  time  from  the  fact  that  I  Avas  for  over  five  years  serving 
you  here  in  the  laAv  library  of  Congress,  during  the  greater  part  of 
that  time  having  in  charge  the  preparation  of  the  index  to  the  Stat- 
utes at  Large ;  and  I  may  say,  probably,  that  I  am  one  of  the  few  men 
in  this  country  who  has  read  all  the  legislation  of  Congress.  In  the 
-work  of  indexing  we  read  every  line. 

The  Chairman.  You  deserA'e  consideration. 

Mr.  Beaman.  So  that  I  feel  at  least  I  can  lay  some  claim  to  know- 
ing the  defects  in  the  legislation  of  Congress,  and  therefore  feel  that 
possibly  I  understand  your  needs  pretty  well. 

There  has  been  considerable  discussion  here  as  to  "  legislative  refer- 
ence Avork "  and  as  to  "  drafting  Avork,"  and  the  impression,  from 
what  I  have  heard,  seems  to  be  that  there  is  a  clearly  defined  distinc- 
tion. It  seems  to  be  the  idea  in  any  CA^ent  that  the  legislative  reference 
work  should  be  in  the  Library,  but  there  has  been  intimation  from 
various  people  that  possibly  the  drafting  work,  or  that  part  of  it 
which  is  spoken  of  as  "  form,"  might  be  connected  with  the  House 
or  with  the  Senate.  It  seems  to  me  that  if  such  a  distinction  Avere 
made  it  would  be  most  unfortunate.  In  the  gathering  of  information, 
as  Dr.  McCarthy  Avell  says,  Ave  should  have  everything  together  on  a 
shelf,  and  that  is  a  A^ery  desirable  thing;  but  the  trouble  is.  What  is 
on  the  shelf  Avhen  you  get  to  the  shelf? 

In  other  words,  information  can  be  gathered  in  a  good  many  dif- 
ferent ways.  It  can  be  gathered  by  some  one  Avho  does  not  know 
much  about  the  subject,  and  therefore  is  not  likely  to  be  so  gathered 
as  to  be  useful ;  or  it  can  be  gathered  by  a  person  expert  in  the  sub- 
ject, in  which  case  it  is  more  likely  to  be  useful.  In  either  event,  not 
only  must  it  be  gathered,  but  it  must  be  interpreted,  in  order  to  be 
of  use  in  legislation. 

Mr.  Evans  and  seA^eral  others  spoke  of  passing  out  information  in 
"  tabloid  "  form.     That  is  a  A^eiy  good  thing,  possibly,  for  the  pur- 


CONGKESSIONAL.  REFERENCE   BUREAU.  77 

poses  of  writing  a  speech  or  enabling  a  Member  to  understand  legis- 
lation coming  up  on  the  floor,  and  can  easily  be  done;  but  the  idea 
that  a  legislative  reference  bureau,  no  matter  hoAV  well  organized, 
can  gather  the  stuff  and  put  it  in  tabloid  form  and  give  it  to  the 
drafter  and  say,  "  You  draft  the  measure  according  to  these  lines," 
is,  to  my  mind,  something  that  can  not  be  done. 

Mr.  Evans.  I  think,  Mr.  Beaman,  if  you  will  permit  me,  that  what 
I  said  was  not  quite  that.  I  was  referring  entirely  to  the  desire  of 
certain  Members  to  have  it  in  that  tabloid  form,  rather  than  the  pos- 
sibility of  any  commission  being  able  to  produce  the  capsules  of  infor- 
mation.    [Laughter.] 

Mr.  Beaman.  The  point  is,  it  is  likely  to  be  indigestible.  In  other 
words,  the  drafter,  in  order  to  draft  a  law,  must  know  something 
about  the  subject  matter.  No  man,  no  matter  of  how  great  ability, 
can  take  the  results  of  the  labor  of  somebody  else  and,  knowing  noth- 
ing about  the  subject  himself,  express  it. 

Mr.  Sherley  has  spoken  about  the  importance  of  form.  I  thor- 
oughly agree  Avith  him.  No  one  better  than  myself  knows  the  lack 
of  form  in  the  statutes  of  Congress;  but  the  trouble  is  that  form 
depends  not  alone  on  accuracy  in  phraseology.  A  statute  may  be 
worded  so  that  it  is  perfectly  clear;  anybody  can  understand  it,  but 
unless  a  man  knows  something  about  the  subject  on  which  he  is  draft- 
ing a  bill,  he  may  not  say  what  ought  to  be  said. 

Mr.  TowNSEND.  It  might  be  like  Browning's  poetry,  very  well 
said,  but  not  say  something. 

Mr.  Beaman.  It  may  say  something,  it  may  be  beautifully  ex- 
pressed, but  it  ma,y  not  cover  the  point;  it  may  not  say  what  ought 
to  be  said.  And  if  the  man  who  is  drafting  the  law  does  not  know 
the  subject  in  some  measure,  why,  he  can  not  draft  a  law,  no  matter 
how  expert  he  may  be  in  form — and  substance  has  got  to  have  form — 
but  the  form  is  only  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  out  the  substance 
of  the  law. 

Mr.  Beaman.  Exactly. 

Mr.  Nelson.  And  if  error  has  not  been  eliminated,  if  that  has  not 
been  covered  thoroughl}^,  the  form  will  do  little  good. 

Mr.  Sherley.  May  I  make  a  suggestion  here,  because  if  the  state- 
ment is  unchallenged  it  will  give  a  false  impression  of  w^hat  my  view- 
point is,  and  I  think  the  error  is  due  to  the  gentleman's  absence  of 
legislative  experience. 

We  want  knowledge  of  the  subject  matter,  but  practically  when  we 
are  legislating  on  the  floor  and  bills  are  put  into  their  final  form, 
there  is  no  opportunity  to  refer;  and  under  our  system  there  is  not 
any  advisory  scheme  I  know  of  whereby  you  could  refer  the  matter 
to  any  board  to  see  whether  we  have  sufficient  knowledge  or  not. 
But  what  we  could  do,  and  ought  to  do,  is  to  have  then  and  there 
available  some  one  sufficiently  versed  in  form  j)ure  and  simple  to 
enable  the  substance,  as  disclosed  by  the  bill  and  the  report  and 
speeches  and  action  of  the  Members  on  the  floor,  to  be  embodied  in 
a  law  that  would  be  intelligible ;  and  that  is  the  crying  need,  it  seems 
to  me,  and  the  reference  aid  ought  to  be  now  possible  under  the  ex- 
isting organization  of  the  library,  if  it  carried  out  the  purposes 
for  which  it  was  originally  created. 

Mr.  TowNSEND.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  certain  that  Mr.  Sherley 
would 


78  CONGRESSIONAL  EEFERENCE   BUREAU. 

[Mr.  Sherley  at  this  point  was  about  to  leave  the  room.]  Wait  a 
minute.  I  am  going  to  talk  about  you.  [Laughter.]  With  his 
experience  would  have  no  idea  contrary  to  that  expressed  by  Dr. 
McCarthy  yesterday,  and  I  am  sorry  you  did  not  hear  him;  and 
that  is  the  occasion  of  my  asking  the  present  speaker.  For  instance, 
Mr.  Sherley,  a  legislator  contemplating  legislation  about  public- 
service  utilities:  Under  the  provisions  of  this  bill  that  I  read  you 
they  would  have  available  for  the  committee  preparing  that  very 
public-service  law,  passed  not  only  by  this  country  but  the  States  of 
this  countr}^  and  foreign  countries,  and  they  would  have  material 
there  to  give  them  the  best  substance  as  well  as  the  best  form. 

]Mr.  Sherley.  Not  only  that,  but  the  man  who  is  looking  to  form 
purely  on  the  floor  would  supposedly  have  some  information  gath- 
ered through  this  other  source  and  through  the  debates  in  Congress ; 
but  when  you,  for  instance,  are  providing  for  a  public-utilities  act 
and  use  the  phrase  "  any  person,"  whereas  the  phrase  "  whoever " 
would  be  a  better  phrase,  it  would  not  require  a  gi'eat  amount  of 
information  outside  for  a  man  to  suggest  "  whoever "  in  place  of 
"  any  person." 

Mr.  Nelson.  I  do  not  want  to  be  misunderstood.  You  have  had 
practical  experience  in  codifying  laws,  and  therefore  the  form  has  got 
very  prominently  into  your  mind,  but  you  do  not  undervalue  the 
substance. 

Mr.  Sherley.  I  do  not  at  all,  but  I  do  not  want  any  man  in  this 
practical  work  to  overvalue  substance.  We  compile  now  masses  of 
information  that  convey  nothing  to  anybody,  for  there  is  a  tendency 
of  some  men  delving  into  a  subject  to  give  undue  importance  to  a 
particular  arrangement  of  information  on  a  given  subject,  whereas 
the  crying  evil  now  is  in  the  expression  of  our  laws ;  and  you  can  not 
by  anj  system  of  reference  take  away  from  Congress  the  necessity 
itself  of  arriving  at  a  conclusion  on  the  substantive  proposition. 

The  Chairman.  May  I  interrupt  you  just  one  moment?  That 
particular  point  was  spoken  of  yesterday  by  Mr.  Bryce,  the  British 
ambassador,  and  he  said  that  they  kept  accessible  on  the  floor  of  the 
House  of  Commons  a  parliamentary  expert  in  form  and  that  if  an 
amendment  were  offered  and  the  prime  minister  or  the  minister  in 
charge  of  the  bill  were  in  doubt  as  to  how  it  would  affect  the  bill  or 
whether  it  was  desirable  to  accept,  he  would  put  some  other  man  on 
the  floor  to  talk  five  or  six  minutes  while  he  went  out  and  consulted 
with  the  parliamentary  expert  and  came  back  ready  to  express  him- 
self upon  the  amendment. 

Mr.  Sherley.  It  is  just  that  practical  reform  I  want  to  see  upon 
the  floor  of  the  House. 

Mr.  Beaman.  But  that  man  in  England  who  is  on  the  floor  is  the 
man  who  has  been  drafting  the  bill  and  knows  something  about  it. 
In  other  words,  it  seems  to  me  that  it  is  impossible,  in  the  hurry  of 
legislative  necessities,  for  a  man  to  appreciate  the  significance  of  an 
amendment  that  is  offered  or  a  word  or  suggestion  unless  he  knows 
its  relations  to  the  other  parts  of  the  bill.  I  think  we  are  differing 
in  terminology ;  that  is  all. 

Mr.  Sherley.  I  grant  you  that  such  a  man  must  not  be  absolutely 
ignorant  of  substance  and  know  only  form,  but  presumabl}^  such  a 
man  will  keep  himself  advised  as  to  substance  that  may  be  provided 
through  another  source.     The  point  I  want  to  emphasize  is  that  a 


CONGRESSIONAL  KEFERENCE   BUREAU.  79 

practicable  thing  that  we  can  put  through  Congress  now  and  get 
results  from  it  is  to  put  on  the  floor  of  the  House  a  man  who  shall 
correspond  to  substantive  law  as  the  parliamentary  clerk  does  to 
the  parliamentary  law,  and  then  I  think  it  ought  to  be  possible, 
without  much  enlargement  or  change,  to  make  the  Library  of  Con- 
gress perform  one  of  the  functions  that  it  was  created  for — of  fur- 
nishing, in  proper,  usable  form,  information  on  the  substance  of  mat- 
ters.    I  am  sorry  to  have  to  so  hastily  make  these  statements. 

Mr.  Beaman.  The  reason  I  bring  up  this  point  is  that  I  am  afraid 
in  your  consideration  of  the  bill  you  might  be  led  to  separate  the  two 
functions  in  that  way,  and  to  my  mind,  if  you  separate  them,  you  will 
not  get  tlie  value  of  them.  In  other  words,  here  is  a  lawyer  trying  a 
case.  He  gets  the  evidence;  he  gathers  that  evidence.  He  may  have 
employed  a  statistician  or  an  economist  or  anything  else,  but  he  sees 
what  is  needed.  It  is  the  same  way  in  legislation — someone  has  got 
to  direct  the  gathering  of  the  evidence  so  that  it  may  be  focused  and 
concentrated  on  the  right  point.  Mere  information  gathered  and 
not  gathered  proper!}^  niay  not  be  of  much  use,  and  it  is  the  same  way 
when  the  information  is  interpreted  to  the  legislature.  That  has  got 
to  be  done  in  the  same  way  as  a  lawyer  does  in  court.  In  other  words, 
it  is  the  lawyer  who  has  to  be  at  the  head  of  the  thing,  and  for  that 
reason  I  think  that  the  head  of  the  bureau  should  be  a  man  Avho  is, 
not  necessarily  a  practicing  lawyer,  but  a  man  of  legal  education,  a 
man  of  sound  ideas  on  the  law,  who  knows  the  law  and  appreciates 
what  is  necessary ;  and  all  information  should  be  gathered  that  way, 
and  if  you  separate  the  two  ideas  you  are  going  to  get  into  trouble. 

In  the  same  way,  there  has  been  some  talk  about  the  assistants.  To 
my  mind  it  is  going  to  be  perfectly  impossible  for  any  one  man,  no 
matter  how  able  he  is  or  how  industrious,  to  carry  all  of  this  work. 
The  chief  of  the  bureau  must  have  at  least  four  or  five  other  trusty 
lieutenants,  and  they  must  be  men  of  almost  the  same  caliber  as  him- 
self. For  that  reason  I  take  it  that  one  of  the  objections  you  will 
have  to  meet  from  Members  of  the  House,  if  you  report  a  bill  of  this 
character,  is  as  to  the  size  of  the  appropriation.  They  are  going  to 
say,  "  Why  can  not  j'ou  appropriate  a  few  thousand  dollars  ?  "  The 
answer  to  that  is  that  you  can  not  get  the  men.  Another  thing  I 
think  is  important 

Mr.  EvAMS.  Can  you  give  us  some  of  the  details?  What  would 
jT^ou  suggest? 

Mr.  Nelson.  Oji  that  point 

Mr.  Evans.  We  know  a  good  many  men  have  to  be  employed.  A 
"  good  manv  "  is  not  definite  enough  for  the  men  who  are  drawing 
the  bill. 

Mr.  Nelson.  May  I  insert  this  in  the  record  right  there  and  I  will 
just  hastily  read  it.  It  will  not  take  long.  It  is  a  very  careful  esti- 
mate, and  a  rather  low  estimate  from  the  prices  Dr.  McCarthy  has 
got  to  pay  for  men.  We  may  find  we  may  not  get  these  [read- 
ing]  ^ 

Mr.  Evans.  Who  made  the  estnnate? 

Mr.  Nelson.  It  is  the  result  of  going  over  the  matter  with  the 
Librarian  of  Congress  and  others  who  have  to  administer  your  law. 

Mr.  Evans.  You  will  put  that  in  the  record? 

Mr.  Nelson.  Yes. 


80  CONGRESSIONAL  EEFERENCE   BUREAU. 

IjCfiishitire  Rcfci'cncc   Bureau. 

Chiof  of  bureau $7,500 

Assistant  chiof 4,  000 

4  expert  draftsmen,  at  $5,000  each 20,000 

2  experts,  at  $2,500  each 5,  000 

Chief  of  indexes  ami  digests  and  editing 3,  000 

1  assistant 2,  000 

4  assistants,  at  $1,800 7,200 

2  assistants,  at  $1.500 3,000 

Chief  translator 2,  500 

2  translators,  at  $1.800 3,600 

1  translator 1,  500 

2  cataloguers,  at  $1,500 3.000 

2  high-grade  stenographers,  at  $1,500 3,000 

4  stenographers,  at  $1,200 4.800 

4  stenographers  and  copyists,  at  $900 3,600 

6  clerks,  at  $900 5,400 

4  clerks,  at  $720 2,  880 

2  messengers,  at  $840 1,680 

4  junior  messengers,  at  $480 1>  920 

Special,  temporary,  and  miscellaneous  service 5,000 

Purchase  of  material 20,000 

Stationery  and  supplies 4,000 

Equipment 5,000 

Travel,  trans])ortation.  postage,  telegrams,  and  incidentals 6,000 

126^500. 

Dr.  McCarthy.  I  think  tliere  slioiild  be  a  good  leeway  made  for"" 
getting  men  outside  of  Washington  for  temporary  service.  ' 

Mr.  TowNSEND.  Saving  thereby  travel. 

Mr.  Evans.  These  four  expert  draftsmen  will  not  be  needed  at 
once.  Members  are  not  in  the  habit  of  using  them.  They  will  gradu- 
ally get  to  using  them. 

Mr.  Beaman.  May  I  say  there  that  I  should  think  that  that  was  a 
pretty  good  statement  of  what  was  needed.  You  asked  me  to  give 
details.  I  should  say  that  that  would  about  represent  my  ideas  on 
the  subject — something  like  that. 

Mr.  Evans.  I  think,  Mr.  Beaman,  when  you  should  come  to  get 
this  into  practice,  if  we  had  four  draftsmen,  that  for  the  rest  of  tliis 
session  those  four  draftsmen  would  be  sitting  around  smoking  good 
cigars  from  early  in  the  morning  until  late  in  the  afternoon.  Mr. 
Sherley  and  my  good  friend,  Mr.  Mann,  would  use  them,  but  as  to 
the  great  bulk  of  the  Members,  it  would  take  time  to  get  them  in  the 
habit  of  utilizing  the  services  of  these  draftsmen. 

Mr.  Beaman.  There  are  two  ansAvers  to  that,  Mr.  Evans.  The 
first  is  that  if  they  would  sit  around  and  smoke  cigars  over  in  the 
Library  of  Congress  they  would  not  hold  their  jobs  very  long. 

Mr.  Evans.  I  do  believe  the  Librarian  has  a  rule  of  that  kind. 
[Laughter.] 

Mr.  Beaman.  In  the  second  place.  I  think  the  situation  you  spoke 
of  is  necessary  for  the  proper  establishment  of  this  bureau — in  other 
w^ords,  these  men  would  need  time  to  fit  themselves.  There  is  at 
present  nobody  in  this  country  who  is  fit  for  this  job — in  the  ideal 
sense.  Some  men  are  better  than  others,  but  you  can  not  expect  any 
results  from  this  bureau  for  several  years.  I  think  that  is  a  thing  you 
have  got  to  impress  upon  Members  of  Congress  in  regard  to  this  bill. 
That  has  to  be  said  right  now.  You  are  going  to  get  the  help,  but 
you  can  not  get  the  help  that  you  wnll  get  eventually,  and  these 


CONGRESSIONAL  REFERENCE   BUREAU.  81 

draftsmen  have  to  be  trained.  For  that  reason  I  think  the  way  to 
start  this  thing  is  to  get  capable  young  men  and  to  train  them  up, 
men  who  will  be  interested  in  making  this  their  life  work,  and  to 
let  them  grow  in  experience.  Reference  has  been  made  to  Mr.  Courts 
and  to  Mr.  Hinds  and  other  valuable  assistants.  That  comes  chiefly 
from  the  fact  of  their  long  experience,  and  that  is  the  only  way  a  man 
is  going  to  amount  to  anj^thing  in  this  work — long  experience  and 
careful,  hard  work. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  now  12  o'clock  and  I  know  something  about 
your  engagements. 

Gentlemen,  the  committee  stands  adjourned  until  '2  o'clock  this 
afternoon. 

Thereupon,  at  12.05  o'clock  p.  m..  the  committee  stood  adjourned 
until  2  o'clock  this  afternoon. 

AFTER   RECESS. 

The  committee  reconvened  at  2  o'clock  p.  m.,  pursuant  to  adjourn- 
ment. 

Mr.  Xelson.  Mr.  Chairman.  I  would  like  to  have  Mr.  C.  B.  Lester, 
of  the  Legislative  Reference  Bureau  of  Xew  York,  make  a  statement. 

^Ir.  Evans.  Mr.  Lester,  will  you  kindly  make  a  statement?  This 
hearing  is  not  formal,  and  we  want  to  get  at  the  real  facts. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  C.  B.  LESTER. 

Mr.  Chairman,  if  you  will  pardon  me,  I  want  to  start  out  with  a 
little  personal  statement  which  will  show  the  basis  for  the  practical 
experience  that  I  want  to  present  to  you.  I  was  one  of  McCarthy's 
boys  out  in  Wisconsin ;  Avent  there  as  a  graduate  student  in  1905,  and 
in  1905-(j  worked  in  his  bureau ;  and  I  went  from  there  in  the 
latter  part  of  1906  to  Indianapolis  and  installed  there  the  first  legisla- 
tive reference  bureau  in  that  State.  I  inaugurated  a  new  department 
in  the  State  library,  and  was  chief  of  that  until  I  went  to  New  York, 
in  1908.  The  Indianapolis  work  Avas  instituted  very  closely  along 
the  lines  which  I  had  seen  in  Wisconsin. 

In  XeAv  York,  as  Dr.  Durand  has  told  you  this  morning,  there  had 
been  a  reference  department  specializing  on  legislative  lines  for 
something  like  20  years.  Beginning  in  1890,  this  reference  depart- 
ment indexed  all  general  legislation  for  all  the  States.  This  is  the 
only  index  of  the  kind  in  this  country,  and  in  printed  form  has  been 
made  widely  available.  As  time  Avent  on  the  Avork  expanded  and 
other  series  of  bulletins  were  added. 

You  Avill  note  that  the  Xew  York  department  emphasized  the  ref- 
erence side,  the  collecting  and  making  available  of  information,  and 
did  not  include  at  all  the  bill-drafting  side.  Bill  drafting  in  the 
State  of  X^eAv  York  is  under  the  control  of  a  bill-drafting  commis- 
sion. That  commission  is  under  the  appointment  of  the  majority 
leader  of  the  senate  and  the  speaker  of  the  assembly. 

Mr.  EvAxs.  Let  me  ask  you  this :  The  bill-drafting  commission, 
then,  is  really  a  bipartisan  affair? 

^Ir.  Lester.  It  is  a  bipartisan  affair. 

;Mr.  Evans.  Each  side  appoints  some  one? 

-1(143."— 12 (i 


82  CONGRESSIONAL  REFERENCE   BUREAU. 

Mr.  Lester.  Well,  there  are,  of  course,  the  more  prominent  men, 
and  particularly  Mr.  Gumming;  he  is  appointed  right  along,  no  mat- 
ter which  side  is  in  control  in  either  house.  He  is  one  of  the  best  men 
in  the  State,  but,  of  course,  the  clerical  force  will  undergo  changes  as 
the  political  complexion  of  the  two  houses  changes. 

Mr.  Evans.  Oh,  I  did  not  mean  that.  Is  the  appointment  of  these 
men  made  part  to  one  party  and  part  to  the  other? 

Mr.  Lester.  It  is  a  joint  appointment. 

Mr.  Evans.  A  joint  appointment? 

Mr.  Lester.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Evans.  And  the  practice  is  to  have  one  man  whom  the  Demo- 
crats refer  to  and  another  to  whom  the  Kepublicans  refer? 

Mr.  Lester.  I  do  not  know  very  much  about  that  detail  of  the 
work  at  all.  That  is  the  unfortunate  thing  about  it,  that  the  two 
things  are  not  united  at  all  in  New  York,  the  legislative  reference 
and  the  bill  drafting. 

Mr.  Evans.  Well,  we  have  had  here  before  us  two  propositions : 
one  bill  provides  that  each  party  shall  appoint  its  own  members ;  and 
we  want  to  know  the  conditions  in  New  York;  you  have  said  enough 
to  make  me  think  that  that  might  be  the  method  in  New  York,  and 
I  simply  wanted  to  know  about  that. 

Mr.  Lester.  I  understand  your  question,  but  I  am  unable  to 
answer  it.  The  legislative  reference  work  there  is  under  the  State 
library,  and  all  employees  are  under  civil-service  appointment.  Now, 
the  thing  that  comes  to  my  mind,  that  I  can  present  to  you  from 
the  experience  that  I  have  thus  had  on  the  two  sides  of  that  Avork  is, 
first,  and  perhaps  most  important,  that  the  two  things  to  be  suc- 
cessful can  not  be  separated. 

Mr.  Evans.  Well,  now,  they  seem  to  be  separate  in  England  and 
in  New  York. 

Mr.  Lester.  They  are  separate  in  New  York,  and  I  do  not  think 
that  the  result  is  successful. 

Mr.  Evans.  In  what  places  are  they  united?  I  want  this  for  the 
record.    I  am  not  making  any  controversy  with  you. 

Mr.  Lester.  They  are  united  in  Wisconsin;  they  are  united  in 
Indiana,  and  I  understand  they  are  united  in  Pennsylvania. 

Mr.  Evans.  Is  there  any  other  gentleman  who  has  a  suggestion  to 
make?    Mr.  Beaman,  you  had  a  suggestion. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  MIDDLETON  BEAMAN. 

Mr.  Beaman.  I  would  just  like  to  say  this:  Mr.  Lester,  is  it  not 
a  fact  that  the  bill-drafting  bureau  in  New  York  is  very  little  use? 

Mr.  Lester.  I  do  not  think  that  that  is  the  fact.  I  believe  it  is 
used  a  good  deal.  The  application  to  the  bureau  is  directly  by  the 
member  who  desires  amendments,  perhaps,  or  resolutions,  and  for 
the  more  important  bills,  unless  those  more  important  bills  have  been 
pi'epared  for  him  elsewhere.  But  there  is  no  connection,  no  organic 
connection  and  no  practical  connection,  between  the  work  of  the  bill- 
drafting  bureau  and  the  work  of  the  reference  section  of  the  State 
library. 

Mr.  Beaman.  In  other  words,  the  bill-drafting  bureau  is  not  used 
as  an  agency  to  interpret  and  make  useful  the  work  of  the  legis- 
lative reference  bureau? 


CONGRESSIONAL,  REFERENCE   BUREAU.  83 

Mr.  Lester.  Not  at  all. 

Mr.  Beaman.  And  your  opinion,  I  understand,  is  that  that  is  due 
to  the  separation  into  two  distinct  departments  'i 

Mr.  Lester.  What  is  due? 

Mr.  Beaman.  The  fact  that  it  is  not  used  is  due  to  the  fact  that 
there  are  two  separate  and  distinct  institutions,  which  would  work 
better  together? 

Mr.  Lester.  I  think  so  decidedly;  yes.  Xot  necessarily  in  the 
State  library,  but  simply  that  those  two  lines  of  work  ought  to  be 
done  together. 

Mr.  Nelson.  You  mean  they  ought  to  be  under  the  one  and  the 
same  head,  so  that  that  head  can  require  the  expert  in  the  substance 
to  work  with  the  man  who  is  expert  in  the  form  ? 

Mr.  Lester.  Exactly.  The  work  of  the  reference  bureau,  perhaps, 
in  bringing  together  information  and  giving  information  of  one  sort 
or  another,  is  not  called  for  by  the  Member  to  be  put  into  the  hands 
of  the  man  who  prepares  the  form — prepares  the  bill.  In  Wisconsin 
and  in  the  States  that  have  modeled  their  work  on  the  Wisconsin 
scheme  those  two  things  necessarily  work  together,  and  the  bill  draft- 
ing is  the  thing  that  vitalizes  the  other  side  and  saves  it  from  be- 
coming academic. 

Dr.  McCarthy.  May  I  say  a  word  here?  How  that  works  out  is 
shown  by  the  following  instance :  A  man  comes  in  and  wants  a  bill 
to  establish  a  domestic-relations  court  in  the  city  of  Milwaukee.  He 
comes  in  first  and  asks  what  cities  have  domestic-relations  courts. 
He  goes  into  the  legislative  reference  department,  and  there  that  is 
all  put  together,  and  he  gets  the  material  and  perhaps  looks  it  over, 
and  then  he  makes  up  his  mind  that  there  is  one  particular  law  that 
he  wishes,  or  perhaps  there  are  several  that  he  wants  to  look  over. 
He  takes  that  material,  then,  to  the  draftsman  right  across  the  way ; 
ne  sits  down  with  that  draftsman  and  they  talk  it  over,  perhaps. 
That  is  one  way  they  get  it;  or  perhaps  he  came  to  the  draftsman 
first,  and  the  draftsman  might  say,  "  Well,  let  us  go  into  the  legisla- 
tive reference  department  and  see  whether  they  have  those  laws  " ; 
and  they  sit  down  and  perhaps  discuss  it  several  hours  together. 
That  is  the  way  that  works  in  Milwaukee. 

Mr.  Beaman.  If  I  may  depart  from  the  form  of  the  procedure  and 
ask  Dr.  McCarthy  a  question:  Is  it  not  true.  Dr.  McCarthy,  that 
when  the  subject  of  inquiry  is  on  some  large  subject  the  draftsman  to 
whom  the  man  goes  is  usually  a  man  who  has  specialized  in  that  sub- 
ject? 

Dr.  McCarthy.  Yes ;  that  is  so.  Our  men  gradually  become  pretty 
well  expert  along  certain  lines.  One  man  in  our  department  has 
specialized  for  several  years  along  the  line  of  local  government. 
Another  man  has  done  a  great  deal  for  public  utilities  and  adminis- 
trative law ;  and  so,  as  far  as  possible,  we  direct  the  member  to  those 
men  who  have  made  specialties  of  that  kind. 

Mr.  Lester.  The  result  of  the  separate  system  that  we  have  in  New 
York  is  that  the  bureau  is  not  used  by  as  large  a  proportion  of  the 
members  as  it  ought  to  be,  and,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  as  similar  bureaus 
under  the  other  plan  are  used,  so  far  as  I  have  seen  them.  The  New 
York  bureau  is  used  by  a  small  number  of  men  who  want  to  go  into 
questions  rather  thoroughly,  and  of  course  it  does  a  great  deal  of 
work  through  correspondence,  not  merely  with  members  of  the  State 


84  CONGRESSIONAL.  REFERENCE   BUREAU. 

government,  but  with  various  administrative  bureaus  of  the  Govern- 
ment in  other  States  all  over  the  country.  This  index  of  legislation 
which  I  have  spoken  of,  which  is  one  of  our  big  pieces  of  Avork,  is 
the  onh^  thing  that  is  done  of  that  kind  in  the  country,  and  other 
States  have  depended  upon  it  as  an  accessory  to  their  work.  On  the 
other  side  of  the  work,  as  I  have  actually  seen  it  in  Wisconsin  and  in 
Indiana,  the  men  who  come  to  the  legislative  reference  bureaus 

Mr.  Nelson.  May  I  interrupt  right  there?  Did  you  state  how 
long  you  had  served  in  Indiana  ? 

Mr.  Lester.  From  the  summer  of  1906  until  the  latter  part  of  1908. 
XoAv  that  you  have  asked  me  that  question,  perhaps  I  may  say  in  re- 
gard to  the  institution  of  tlie  department  there  that  that  is  a  State 
which  has  a  biennial  session  of  the  legislature,  in  the  odd  years,  as  so 
many  of  the  States  do,  and  I  went  there  in  the  summer  of  1906  on  a 
purely  temporary  appointment,  to  outline  this  kind  of  work  and 
make  it  appeal,  if  possible,  to  the  members  of  the  legislature  and  to 
see  whether  this  kind  of  work  was  needed  in  that  State. 

Mr.  Evans.  But  that  does  not  help  us,  Mr.  Lester 

Mr.  Nelson.  It  does,  Mr.  Evans,  if  I  may  interrupt  you,  by  saying 
that  the  thing  to  remember  is  that  it  is  working  in  the  various  States. 

Mr.  Evans.  I  don't  think  there  is  any  doubt  about  that.  I  think 
we  are  devoting  a  great  deal  of  attention  to  things  that  seem  to  me 
about  as  clear  as  that  2  and  2  make  4.  I  do  not  believe,  as  I 
said  this  morning,  that  on  the  part  of  the  committee  there  is  any  ques- 
tion that  the  whole  idea  is  along  the  right  line  and  is  practicable. 
Whether  we  will  make  it  so  by  our  bill  is  the  proposition  before  us. 
We  find  on  one  side  that  it  is  practicable  in  England.  We  find  it 
practicable  on  both  sides  in  Wisconsin,  and  therefore  that  is  the 
nature  of  res  adjudicata.  We  want  to  find  out  something  about  how 
to  accomplish  this  useful  aim  here,  and  you  are  trying  to  qualify  as 
an  expert  witness  to  this  end.  I  can  say  it  is  unnecessary ;  in  a  court 
it  would  all  be  very  proper.  But  I  hope  you  will  devote  j^ourselves  to 
the  question  how  we  can  adopt  this  valuable  aid  to  legi.slation  here. 
That  is  the  question. 

Mr.  Lester.  But,  if  I  understand  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  then  there 
are  two  points  that,  perhaps,  I  can  finish  up  Avith,  saying  that  from 
my  experience 

Mr.  Evans.  I  am  glad  to  hear  you ;  I  am  very  much  interested ;  but 
I  assure  you  that  if  you  make  a  record  here  that  consists  of  personal 
experiences  3^ou  will  not  throw  much  light  on  the  question. 

Mr.  Lester.  I  understand  perfectly,  sir.  I  simply  thought  that 
my  statement  would  have  the  effect — Mr.  Xelson  suggested  it  just 
now 

Mr.  Evans.  We  are  quite  advised  that  you  are.  of  all  the  people  in 
the  country,  best  qualified  to  know  about  it. 

Mr.  Nelson.  Of  course,  Mr.  Evans,  I  defer  greatly  to  your  judg- 
ment in  the  matter. 

Mr.  Ea'ans.  I  only  speak  of  that  because  Mr.  Townsend  and  Mr. 
Pickett,  and  all  the  gentlemen,  except  Mr.  Gardner — and  he  did  so 
yesterday — said  that  they  wished  that  we  could  get  some  suggestion 
about  what  we  should  do  on  this  bill.  There  is  no  question  about 
the  advisability  of  the  idea.  All  of  the  gentlemen  on  the  committee 
having  told  me  that,  it  seems  to  me  that  it  immediately  gets  down  to 
the  point 


CONGRESSIONAL.  BEFERENCE   BUREAU.  85 

Mr.  Nelson.  I  beg  3^0111-  pardon;  but  after  conferring  on  the  mat- 
ter Avith  200  Members  of  the  House,  at  least,  I  find  that  the  (luestion 
we  liave  had  to  meet  right  along  is:  How  does  it  work  in  Wisconsin? 
How  does  it  work  in  Indiana?     Is  it  practicable? 

Mr.  Evans.  That  is  the  kind  of  thing  I  want.  The  experiences  of 
the  witnesses,  and  all  that  kind  of  thing,  in  Indianapolis,  and  the 
legislature  now  sitting 

Mr.  Nelson.  I  see  you  are  objecting  to  the  amount  of  time  it  is 
taking.  But  we  can  show  them  the  practical  side  of  this  thing,  be- 
cause the  same  things  that  are  working  out  in  Wisconsin  and  in 
Indiana  will  work  out  likewise  in  Congress. 

Mr.  Evans.  That  has  been  practical.  Dr.  McCarthy  has  shown 
what  was  done  in  Indiana,  and  to  use  the  language  of  a  lawyer,  I 
would  rest  the  case  on  his  testimony  as  to  conditions  in  Wisconsin; 
I  would  then  try  to  show  that  it  is  practicable  here.  I  assure  you 
we  are  pretty  busy.  You  know  yourself,  Mr.  Nelson,  that  Ave  can  not 
begin  to  do  all  Ave  have — on  this  committee,  I  mean,  Ave  can  not  be- 
gin to  get  through  with  these  bills  here ;  and  the  Military  Committee 
is  in  just  the  same  condition. 

Mr.  Lester.  I  would  close,  then,  by  emphasizing,  first,  the  fact  that 
to  make  it  practicable  for  Congress  the  Iavo  lines  of  Avork  should  be 
closely  connected  under  the  same  general  leadership  and  not  cA^en 
separate,  as,  if  I  understood  him  correctly.  Mr.  Sherley  suggested 
this  morning;  and,  secondly,  that  it  should  be  absolutely  nonpartisan 
from  top  to  bottom  and  not  at  all  bipartisan. 

Mr.  Ea'ans.  Let  me  ask  you  this  question:  A^Hiio  should  be  at  the 
head  of  all  this?  If  you  haA^e  a  unified  bureau,  to  which  department 
should  the  man  at  the  head  of  this  bureau  belong,  the  drafting  de- 
partment or  the  reference  dejjartment  ? 

Mr.  Lester.  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  the  man  at  the  head  should 
be  one  Avho  had  more  experience  in  the  drafting  side  of  it.  But  of 
course  it  is  at  once  understod  that  the  proper  appointee  is  the  man 
who  can  look  at  both  sides  of  that  question.  I  believe  that  the  actual 
experience  that  he  has  had  should  be  more  on  the  drafting  side.  Per- 
haps he  should  be  understood  to  be  a  trained  laAvyer. 

Mr.  Evans.  Have  a^ou  anything  else  to  present,  Mr.  Nelson? 

Mr.  Nelson.  Noav,^  Mr.  Chairman.  I  Avould  like  to  call  Mr.  Mc- 
Kirdy 

Mr.  Evans.  Pardon  me.  I  Avould  like  to  ask  Mr.  Lester,  in  order  to 
bring  out  the  point  that  Avas  brought  up  this  morning,  is  the  Library 
of  Congress,  in  your  judgment,  a  proper  place  for  it? 

Mr.  Lester.  I  think  it  is,  decidedly. 

Mr.  Nelson.  For  what  reason  ? 

Mr.  Lester.  Because  it  keeps  it  absolutely  out  of  political  appoint- 
ment. I  do  not  think  the  appointment  of  a  person  to  attend  to  one 
side  by  the  Speaker  and  a  person  to  attend  to  the  other  side  by 
the ^ 

Mr.  Ea'ans.  You  are  getting  off  the  question.  The  question  is  not 
one  of  locality  at  all. 

Mr.  Lester.  Well,  I  understand  that  to  be  Avhat  Avas  meant  by  the 
place,  as  against  the  other  method  that  Avas  spoken  of. 

Dr.  McCarthy.  A  ncAv  administration? 

Mr.  Lester.  A  new  department  of  the  library. 


86  CONGRESSIONAL  EEFEEENCE   BUREAU. 

Mr.  Evans.  There  is  a  confusion  about  all  this.  Now  you  are  go- 
ing on  to  another  side,  also  important,  but  not  connected  with  this. 
I  asked.  Should  this  bureau  be  located  in  the  library?  Your  answer 
is  yes. 

Mr.  Lester.  You  mean,  for  instance,  rather  than  in  the  Capitol  or 
in  one  of  the  office  buildings :  is  that  it  ? 

Mr.  Evans.  Why,  no;  that  is  a  matter  of  detail.  An  outside  build- 
ing would  not  be  as  good  as  ours.  I  am  trying  to  find  out  what  you 
mean  by  the  place.  That  is  all  I  asked  you — what  place  you  thought 
it  should  be? 

Mr.  Lester.  Of  course  my  experience  of  Washington  affairs  is 
nothing  at  all:  and  I  do  not  know  of  any  place  better  than  the 
Library  of  Congress  for  that  work. 

Mr.  Nelson.  May  I  ask  him  a  question?  The  first  question  is  the 
appointment — by  whom  appointed.  An  appointment  by  the  librarian 
would  bring  the  chief  entirely  out  of  politics,  would  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Lester.  I  believe  so. 

Mr.  Evans.  Well,  now,  Mr.  Nelson,  j'^ou  are  asking  for  a  conclu- 
sion there  that  we  might  not  agree  to. 

Mr.  Nelson.  I  am  asking  for  his  opinion  as  an  expert,  Mr.  Chair- 
man. 

Mr.  Evans.  That  is  an  opinion  upon  which  he  is  not  an  expert. 
That  is  a  question  that  would  have  to  be  determined  by  the  future, 
after  he  has  been  there.  You  know  as  well  as  I  do  that  politicians 
as  frequently  put  people  into  nonpartisan  positions  as  if  they  were 
absolutely  partisan.  Gentlemen,  that  is  not  going  to  the  merits  and 
not  going  to  help  us  at  all. 

Mr.  Nelson.  I  would  like  to  call  Mr.  James  McKirdy,  assistant 
director  of  the  Legislative  Reference  Bureau  of  Pennsylvania. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  JAMES  McKIRDY. 

Mr.  McKiRDY.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  inasmuch  as  you 
have  rather  limited  the  scope  of  the  investigation,  I  feel  at  a  loss  as 
to  what  to  say.  I  came  here  to  testify  as  to  my  experience  and  the 
experience  of  my  bureau  in  Pennsylvania  during  the  last  two  years. 

Mr.  Evans.  That  is  what  we  want,  but  not  a  specially  long  exami- 
nation as  to  5^our  qualifications.  We  accept  you  as  a  competent  wit- 
ness.   Go  ahead,  then,  and  tell  us  what  is  practical  about  this  thing. 

Mr.  McKiRDY.  Well,  if  you  will  kindly  indicate  now  the  change 
that  you  have  made  along  your  line  of  questioning  or  along  the  line 
of  investigation  since  yesterday,  I  will  be  glad  to  follow  you.  I 
understood  that  we  were  to  tell  just  exactly  the  practical  workings  of 
the  legislative  reference  bureau,  not  alone  in  the  States,  but  as  applied 
to  Congress. 

Mr.  Evans.  That  is  exactly  what  we  want. 

Mr.  McKiRDY.  Now,  as  I  understand,  you  want  to  limit  it  to  show 
that  it  should  be  either  under  the  direction  of  the  Librarian  of  Con- 
gress, or  else  under  the  President  of  the  Senate  or  the  Speaker  of 
the  House  of  Representatives. 

Mr.  Evans.  I  assure  you  there  is  no  Avarrant  for  that  assumption 
of  yours,  none  whatever:  I  have  said  nothing  of  that  kind.  I  use 
the  English  language  to  say  exactly  what  I  mean,  and  that  does  not 
permit  the  inference  of  something  else  outside  of  it.     I  mean  just 


CONGRESSIONAL  REFERENCE   BUREAU.  87 

what  I  say.  I  want  to  know  how  this  scheme,  or  this  theory  or  idea 
of  a  reference  bureau  and  a  bill-drafting  bureau  may  be  applied 
here,  and  for  that  purpose  I  want  to  know  what  the  experience  is 
in  its  application  elsewhere.     Now,  that  is  certainly  simple. 

Mr.  McKiRDY.  Well,  then,  Mr.  Chairman,  in  order  to  that,  let  me 
tell  you  that  our  bureau  is  about  two  years  old.  We  started  in  a 
little  before  the  last  session  of  our  legislature  in  Pennsylvania.  No- 
body knew  anything  about  it.  We  tried  to  follow  the  lines  that  Mr. 
McCarthy  had  laid  out  for  us,  and  the  result,  in  a  few  words,  was 
that  we  had  an  unqualified  success.  Out  of  257  men  in  our  legisla- 
ture T  doubt  if  there  were  more  than  11  that  did  not  at  different 
times  make  use  of  our  bureau — not  alone  for  the  purpose  of  getting 
information,  but  also  and  mainly  for  the  purpose  of  having  us  draft 
bills,  resolutions,  and  amendments  for  them.  I  feel  sure,  so  far  as 
Pennsylvania  is  concerned — I  can  not  speak  for  anything  outside  of 
that — I  feel  sure  that  so  far  as  Pennsylvania  is  concenied  the  future 
of  our  bureau  lies  along  the  line  of  bill  drafting. 

We  can  see  now,  within  the  short  time  of  our  experience,  that  it  is 
going  to  render  incalculable  service  to  the  members.  'J.^hese  men 
came  from  diiferent  walks  of  life.  They  did  not  know  much  about 
laws.  They  came  to  Harrisburg  as  ignorant  of  legislation  us  I  am 
of  the  practice  of  medicine;  and  we  tried  to  act  toward  them  ns  spe- 
cialists along  that  line.  The  same  thing  applies  to  Congrossmcn. 
Congressmen  are  men  just  the  same  as  the  legislators  in  Harrisburg. 
They  are  not  a  bit  higher,  if  I  may  say  so.  They,  ])erhaps,  have  a 
larger  percentage  of  attorneys,  and  know  something  about  the  mak- 
ing of  laws ;  but  I  have  found,  even  in  the  short  experience  Lliat  we 
have  had  at  Harrisburg,  that  lawyers  do  not  know  how  to  draft  bills. 
I  have  had  bills  brought  in  to  me  by  members  that  have  been  di'afted 
by  some  of  the  best  lawyers  in  Pennsylvania;  and  I  have  had  bills 
brought  in  that  have  been  drafted  by  judges.  I  must  say  that  they 
were  very  crude  specimens  of  bill  drafting;  very  crude  specimens, 
indeed.  Now,  then,  is  it  not  fair  to  presume,  Mr.  Chairman,  that 
the  same  conditions  will  obtain  in  Congress? 

Mr.  Nelson.  May  I  interrupt  here  to  bring  that  point  out  so  that 
it  will  not  be  misunderstood?  A  lawyer  has  had  practice  in  the  in- 
terpretation of  law  and  in  the  application  of  it.  His  mind  has  not 
been  trained  in  the  technique  of  law  forms. 

Mr.  Evans.  I  do  not  think,  Mr.  Nelson,  that  exception  can  be 
taken ;  he  says  by  men  of  experience. 

Mr.  McKiRDY.  They  are  generalities,  Mr.  Evans,  of  course. 

Mr.  Evans.  Every  man  of  experience  and  every  practicing  lawyer 
knows  that  that  is  true. 

Mr.  McKiRDY.  "Well,  then,  let  us  come  down  to  the  question  as  to 
the  person  under  whom  this  bureau  should  be  placed.  Judging  from 
our  experience,  to  keep  it  absolutely  out  of  politics  is  the  only  way. 
You  can  not  do  it,  Mr.  Chairman,  if  you  make  it  appointive  by  the 
Speaker  and  by  the  Vice  President  or  the  President  protempore  of 
the  Senate.  You  can  not  make  it  so  if  he  is  appointed  by  the  Presi- 
dent. You  must  put  it  under  a  man  who  is  absolutely  devoid  of  any 
political  affiliations.  I  am  not  speaking  here  for  the  Librarian,  of 
course.  If  you  can  find  some  other  medium,  all  well  and  good ;  but 
to  render  such  a  bureau  absolutely  effective  you  must  keep  it  out  of 
any  complication  whatever  of  politics. 


88  CONGEBSSIONAL.  REFERENCE   BUREAU. 

We  have  been  vei\y  fortunate  in  Pennsylvania.  Our  State,  of 
course,  has  a  very  strong  Republican  organization;  but  I  will  say 
in  all  fairness  to  them  that  they  have  made  no  attempt  whatever  to 
hamper  us.  We  had  two  or  three  ditferent  elements.  We  had  the 
Republicans  and  the  Democrats,  we  had  the  so-called  Keystone 
Party,  and  we  had  the  Socialists.  At  the  end  of  the  session  they  all 
united  in  passing  a  resolution  thanking  us  in  the  highest  terms  for 
our  absolute  fairness.  That  could  not  have  been  done  if  there  had 
been  any  suspicion  at  all  of  partisan  bias  on  our  part. 

To  go  back  for  a  moment,  I  can  not  insist  too  strongly  on  that  one 
feature  of  bill  drafting.  It  is  the  life,  it  is  the  vitality  of  this  whole 
thing.  You  can  collect  statistics — and  Mr.  Meyer  there  in  the 
Library  of  Congress  has  collected  statistics  for  us  and  he  has  col- 
lected them  for  Congress,  and  all  that,  and  in  Pennsylvania  we  have 
had  the  greatest  help  from  our  State  librarian  in  gathering  informa- 
tion for  us — but  it  is  nonsense;  it  is  useless,  if  you  can  not  put  the 
information  into  something  concrete.  If  a  Member  of  Congress 
wants  statistics  for  the  purpose  of  making  a  speech,  that  is  one 
thing.  But  to  put  that  down  in  concrete  form,  in  preparing  to  make 
a  law  for  the  United  States,  is  an  entirely  different  thing,  a  very 
much  more  difficult  thing,  and  it  should  be  put  into  the  hands  of  a 
practical  force  of  men. 

If  there  is  anything,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  you  Avould  like  to  ask 
along  the  lines  that  you  have  indicated,  I  should  be  glad  to  give  you 
the  result  of  our  little  experience.     It  is  small,  I  admit. 

Mr.  Evans.  Ha^e  you  read  the  bill? 

Mr.  McKiRDY.  Yes;  I  read  it  very  carefully, 

Mr.  Evans.  Now,  the  question  of  the  appointment  is,  after  all,  a 
mere  means  of  reaching  an  end,  and  this  bill  will  probably  be 
amended  after  we  pass  it ;  it  will  be  amended  Avithin  two  or  three 
years ;  and  it  would  not  be  natural  or  healthy  if  it  Avere  otherwise. 
Sections  2  and  3  are  realh^  one  idea;  section  2  mentions  the  compen- 
sation.    The  compensation  had  probably  better  be  fixed  by  statute. 

Mr.  McKiKDY.  Mr.  Evans,  if  you  will  permit  me  to  interrupt  just 
a  moment,  I  think  you  are  mistaken  on  that  point.  If  you,  perhaps 
from  a  spirit  of  economy  or  something  else,  should  fix  the  compensa- 
tion to  be  paid  to  these  men.  the  chances  are  that  you  would  fix  it 
too  low  to  get  the  right  kind  of  services.  You  have  got  to  pay  a  man 
more  than  a  good  salary ;  you  have  got  to  pay  him  a  high  salary  to  get 
the  right  kind. 

Mr.  Evans.  Well,  you  would  accomplish  by  indirection  what  you 
can  not  do  directly.  The  chances  are  that  some  one  on  the  appro- 
priations bill  would  come  in  and  he  would  limit  the  appropriation. 
The  best  thing  to  do  is  to  meet  the  issue  squarely.  Explain  to  the 
Socialists  and  the  insurgents  in  Congress  the  necessity  of  having  a 
man  of  brains,  ability,  and  experience,  and  I  do  not  believe  that  they 
will  object  to  paying  good  salaries.  I  confess  I  was  surprised  to 
hear  a  speaker  this  morning  object  to  $10,000;  I  do  not  see  hoAV  we 
can  get  a  man  to  do  the  Avork  that  I  want  him  to  do  for  $10,000.  You 
know  there  is  not  the  same  honor  attached  to  this  that  there  is  to  a 
congressional  position. 

Mr.  Nelson.  I  agree  with  you  that  it  Avoidd  be  very  desirable  to 
fix  salaries  beforehand  if  it  Avere  practicable. 


CONGRESSIONAL  BEFEKENCE   BUREAU.  89 

Mr.  Evans.  I  mean  just  the  head  of  the  hiireaii :  we  can  not  fix 
the  salaries  of  the  others. 

Mr.  Nelson.  Yes:  because  they  require  expert  skill. 

Mr.  Evans.  The  reason  I  want  a  good  salary  put  in  the  hill  is  to 
make  people  see  that  it  amounts  to  soniethinj2:. 

Mr.  Putnam.  And  I  suofirest,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  1  think  the 
salary  in  the  schedule  submitted  this  morning  Avas  too  low.  Six 
thousand  dollars  is  not  enoup;h. 

Mr.  McKiKDY.  That  was  not  official.  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Putnam.  Anythinsf  less  than  $7,.")00  would  certainly  be  too 
low. 

Mr.  Evans.  Of  course,  we  mig-ht  raise  it.  It  is  very  hard  to  get 
those  things  raised,  however.  Avith  a  falling  revenue.  Of  course.  I 
think  the  rational  thing  is  to  start  all  these  salaries  lower  than  we 
expect,  because  they  will  not  be  very  efficient  at  first.  The  smartest 
man  in  Wilwaukee  would  not  be  very  efficient  the  first  year. 

Mr.  McKiRDY.  Mr.  Chairman,  you  recognize  that  this  is  purely  an 
experiment,  so  far  as  Congress  is  concerned.  It  could  be  remedied 
at  the  next  session.  Why  not  let  it  go  as  it  is  with  a  lump  sum  and 
put  it  under  the  Librarian  of  Congress^  Leave  it  to  his  discretion, 
and  if  he  abuses  that  discretion  then  change  it. 

Mr.  Xelson.  ]Mr.  Chairman.  I  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that 
this  is  put  under  the  control  of  the  Committee  on  Appropriati(!ns.  as 
the  librarian  must  submit  estimates  and  explain  to  them  in  detail 
what  this  fund  is  used  for,  and  after  we  get  it  fixed  and  he  knows 
what  he  can  get  those  skilled  men  for,  then  the  salaries  can  be  fixed. 

Mr.  Putnam.  Mr.  Chairman,  it  is  my  observation  that  in  spite  of 
all  these  considerations  the  salary  of  the  chief  of  that  bureau  may, 
according  to  legislatiAe  policy,  have  to  be  specified  in  the  bill.  It  is  a 
different  matter  with  the  subordinate  positions. 

Mr.  Evans.  Quite  right. 

Mr.  Putnam.  That  is  my  experience  of  the  Appropriations  Com- 
mittee. In  the  case  of  one  or  two  small  lump-sum  appropriations  we 
have  in  the  Library.  I  am  asked  at  any  time  to  get  the  pay  roll  and  we 
always  do  it.  I  am  a  little  apprehensive  about  the  changing  of  the 
schedule  that  went  in  this  morning,  which  seems  to  commit  the  pro- 
ponents of  the  bill  to  a  salary  so  low  as  $6,000,  and  if  there  is  any 
way  of  making  the  record  clear  and  showing  that  that  is  too  small,  it 
should  be  done. 

Mr.  Evans.  Are  you  satisfied  with  the  wording  of  section  4? 

Mr.  McKiRDY.  You  mean  technicalh'? 

Mr.  Evans.  Well,  satisfied  is  a  broad  term.  You  can  express  your 
dissatisfaction  in  any  way,  substantially  or  technically,  as  you  wish. 

Mr.  McKiRDY.  Well,  of  course,  I  do  not  suppose  there  is  anybody 
that  could  draw  a  bill  to  suit  me  exactly,  unless  it  would  "lie  myself. 

Mr.  Evans.  I  should  be  sorry  to  think  that.  I  don't  think  you 
mean  it. 

Mr.  ISIcKiRDY.  Every  man  wants  to  make  a  little  bit  of  a  change, 
of  course. 

Mr.  Evans.  Well,  is  not  that  an  evidence  of  littleness — the  desire 
to  make  changes  for  the  sake  of  doing  something  is  an  evidence  of 
littleness  ? 

Mr.  McKiRDY.  It  is  a  human  trait. 


90  CONGRESSIONAL.  REFERENCE  BUREAU. 

Mr.  Evans.  No:  there  are  human  beings  without  it. 

Mr.  McKiRDY.  Well,  we  Avill  pass  that  point. 

Mr.  Evans.  I  want  any  real  suggestion  that  goes  to  the  merits. 
For  instance,  it  says  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  such  bureau  to  make  avail- 
able any  translations,  and  you  have  not  said  what  languages — there 
is  an  inference  there  that  a  good  bill  drafter  (Avith  apologizes  to  my 
Brother  Xelson)  would  not  have  left ;  there  is  a  reference,  and  it  is 
not  shown  that  there  is  anything  to  be  submitted. 

Mr.  McKiRDY.  I  am  against  the  categorical  enumeration  of  things 
to  be  done  in  any  bill. 

Mr.  EvAMS.  You  mean  on  the  principles  of  bill  drafting? 

Mr.  McKiRDY.  Yes. 

Mr.  Evans.  I  don't  think  there  is  any  objection  to  that. 

Mr.  Nelson.  May  I  interrupt.  Mr.  Chairman?  I  know  that  you 
heartily  desire  the  language  to  carry  out  the  purpose  of  the  bill. 
Now,  it  appears  to  me  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  specify  the  German 
or  French  language ;  and  when  you  say  '"  said  bureau  shall  gather, 
classify,  and  make  available  any  translations" 

Mr.  Evans.  Yes;  that  means  translate  the  English  things  into 
German. 

Mr.  Nelson.  Oh,  no. 

Mr.  Evans.  That  is  perfectly  consistent  with  what  it  says. 

Mr.  Nelson.  Well,  would  it  not  be  interpreted  reasonably;  would 
it  not  be  foolish  to  say  that  we  were  to  translate  from  English  into 
German  ? 

Mr.  Evans.  Well,  you  have  spoken  of  no  foreign  language.  You 
are  to  gather,  classify,  and  make  available  an}^  translations,  indexes, 
digests,  compilations,  bulletins,  "  and  otherwise."  How  about  the 
words  "  and  otherwise"?     You  mean  other  data,  don't  j^ou? 

Mr.  Nelson.  No;  here  are  certain  things  specified.  To  gather, 
classify,  and  make  available  any  translations,  indexes,  digests,  com- 
pilations, and  bulletins,  ''  and  otherwise  " ;  that  is  a  grab-all  clause. 

Mr.  McKiRDY.  It  should  not  be  in. 

Mr.  Evans.  Make  available  otherAvise,  or  perform  the  duty  other- 
wise ? 

Mr.  Putnam.  No;  there  is  a  comma  in  there;  make  aA^ailable  in 
such  form — any  translations. 

Mr.  Evans.  Well,  that  is  the  Avay  I  read  it ;  but  that  "  otherwise  " 
ought  to  be  left  out. 

Mr.  McKiRDY.  Why  not  use  the  word  "  information  "  instead  of 
"data"? 

Mr.  Evans.  I  think  Mr.  Nelson  Avill  have  to  redraw  that  para- 
graph. 

Mr.  Nelson.  May  I  interrupt  right  here?  I  do  not  claim  infalli- 
bility as  one  of  my  virtues ;  but  this  bill  is  the  concensus  of  the  best 
thought  that  I  could  gather  from  experts  over  the  country,  both 
as  to  substance  and  as  to  language.  Now,  the  committee  is  the 
final  judge,  and  if  it  sees  fit  to  make  any  change,  Avhy  it  will  be 
most  cheerfully  accepted  by  me. 

Mr.  Evans.  I  was  simply  arguing  to  see  what  the  witness's  idea 
was  of  good  bill  drafting. 

Mr.  McKiRDY.  I  will  be  glad  to  give  it  to  you  in  the  concrete,  Mr. 
Chairman,  subject,  however,  to  your  criticism. 


CONGRESSIONAL  BEFERENOE   BUREAU.  91 

Mr.  Evans.  Your  principle  is  absolutely  right.  Have  you  any 
other  questions,  gentlemen?     Have  you  any  (question,  Mr.  Pickett? 

Mr.  Pickett.  I  might  ask,  on  section  5,  if  you  are  going  through 
the  bill  seriatum.  What  do  you  say  as  to  the  limitation  of  15  Mem- 
bers of  the  House? 

Mr.  McKiRDY.  I  think  it  is  absurd.  As  Mr.  Mann  stated  this 
morning,  if  a  man  is  at  all  popular  in  the  House,  the  getting  to- 
gether of  14  other  men  to  sign  his  application  would  be  a  matter 
of  great  ease.  I  understand,  now,  in  some  of  the  foreign  countries — 
I  believe  Germany — you  can  not  introduce  a  bill  unless  14  other  men 
join  with  you ;  but  in  order  to  make  this  bureau  a  really  efficient  and 
effective  bureau  it  should  operate  directly  between  the  bureau  and 
the  individual  Member. 

Mr,  Pickett.  I  agree  with  you.  The  reason  I  had  in  mind  for 
asking  you  the  question,  was  this:  Sometimes  there  is  a  little  rivalry 
with  respect  to  the  introduction  of  measures  of  public  importance. 

Mr.  McKiRDY.  Very  often. 

Mr.  Pickett.  Frequently  a  Member  spends  considerable  time  and 
work  in  figuring  out  a  measure  along  certain  lines;  now,  then,  if  it 
is  discovered,  somebody  else  may  take  advantage  and  introduce  the 
bill.     That  has  been  done. 

Mr.  McKiRDY.  If  you  will  allow  me  I  can  cite  an  experience  of 
that  kind  during  the  last  session  of  the  legislature  in  Pennsylvania. 
More  than  once  a  member  would  come  in  and  ask  me  if  there  had 
been  anything  new  "  on  deck,"  as  he  would  say.  In  other  words, 
whether  there  was  new  legislation  being  proposed,  his  idea  being, 
of  course,  to  forestall  some  other  man  in  introducing  it.  That  is 
a  very  common  thing,  as  I  understand  it.  Of  course,  my  own  ex- 
perience only  dates  now  from  the  last  two  years. 

Mr.  Pickett.  Did  I  ask  somebody  this  morning — you,  perhaps, 
would  know  better  than  I  would— how  many  public  bills  are  intro- 
duced during  a  session  of  Congress? 

Mr.  McKiRDY.  I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  Pickett.  Has  anyone  that  information  here?  Have  you,  Mr. 
Putnam  ? 

Mr.  Putnam.  Well,  the  acts  and  joint  resolutions  introduced  in 
Congress  during  the  Sixty-first  Congress  were  44,000. 

Mr.  Gardner.  That  includes  private  bills. 

Mr.  Putnam.  Yes;  it  is  a  little  difficult  to  separate  the  public  and 
private  bills;  but  the  statistics  of  laws  passed,  of  course,  are  sepa- 
rated out.  In  the  same  Congress  there  were  525  acts  passed.  And 
the  same  proportion  probably  might  hold  between  the  public  and 
private  bills  introduced.  That  is  to  say,  during  the  Sixty-first  Con- 
gress there  were  enacted  594  public  bills  and  288  private  acts  or  reso- 
lutions. 

Mr.  Pickett.  I  think  the  number  of  private  bills  is  greater.  That 
would  be  my  assumption.  Of  course,  there  are  many  bills  introduced 
on  the  same  subjects — frequently  mere  duplication. 

Dr.  McCarthy.  If  I  might  say  a  word.  In  a  way,  when  you  start 
out  this  bureau  that  limitation  of  15  members  would  not  be  a  bad 
thing,  because  when  you  get  it  started  it  would  be  better  for  your 
men  to  have  a  limited  number  of  bills  to  draft,  and  if  a  bill  is  so 
important  15  men  will  unite  in  support  of  it  and,  at  least,  for  several 


92  CONGRESSIONAL.  REFERENCE   BUREAU. 

years  to  come  that  might  be  a  good  thing  for  your  bill  draftsmen  and 
for  your  bureau.  Otherwise,  I  would  be  afraid  the  service  might 
be  too  flooded  by  cases  of  a  trivial  nature.  I  only  suggest  that  as, 
perhaps,  some  argument  in  favor  of  the  15  limitation. 

Mr.  Evans.  The  next  thing  in  paragraph  5  that  strikes  me  as 
remarkable  is,  what  power  under  the  Constitution  the  President  of 
the  United  States  has  as  regards  legislation?  This  gives  the  Presi- 
dent power  to  suggest  public  bills  and  amendments  to  be  drafted. 
I  am  a  little  at  a  loss  to  understand  what  that  means. 

Mr.  Nelson.  I  would  like  to  explain.  The  President  of  the  United 
States  is  very  much  interested,  as  I  am  informed  by  his  former  secre- 
tary, Mr.  Norton,  in  the  establishment  of  something  of  this  kind,  as 
he  has  been  interested  in  the  matter  of  economy  and  efficiency  in  the 
various  departments,  and  I  believe  at  one  time  contemplated  a  rec- 
ommendation along  this  line  to  Congress.  This  bill  was  drafted 
with  the  thought  of  1)eing  also  of  service  to  the  executive  depart- 
ments; but  in  conferring  with  leading  Members  of  Congress  they 
took  the  position  that  this  ought  to  be  a  congressional  service,  and 
so  many  of  those  provisions  were  modified,  as  you  will  see  by  con- 
sulting other  bills.  But  the  President  has  presented  in  concrete 
form  some  of  his  recommendations,  and  when  specially  desired,  we 
see  no  reason  Avhy  he  should  be  denied  the  right  of  having  the  service 
of  the  experts;  but  if  you  feel  that  you  wish  to  limit  this  wholly  to 
Congress,  as  the  author  of  the  bill  I  have  no  objection  to  your- strik- 
ing that  out.  But  it  appears  to  me  that  we  are  shutting  the  door 
entirely  to  the  President. 

Mr.  Evans.  Well,  I  thought  that  the  Constitution  did  that  in  re- 
gard to  bills.  I  thought  the  Constitution  did  that  in  regard  to 
legislation. 

Mr.  McKiRDY.  Is  not  this  function  served  by  the  Attorney  Gen- 
eral ? 

Mr.  Evans.  The  language  states  that  public  bills  or  amendments 
to  public  bills  shall  be  drafted  by  the  bureau  Avhen  the  President  of 
the  United  States  shall  make  request  therefor,  and  that  he  is  to  fur- 
nish instructions  thereon.  The  President  of  the  United  States  is 
authorized  to  have  this  bureau  draw  for  him  public  bills  or  amend- 
ments to  public  bills,  and  I  think  that  Congress  would  very  respect- 
fully resent  interference  on  the  part  of  the  President  in  having  a  bill 
drawn  up  and  pre])ared,  or  an  amendment  to  one,  by  the  President. 

Mr.  Nelson.  Mr.  Chairman,  Mr.  Mann  stated  to-day  that  he  be- 
lieved that  that  would  be  a  wise  thing;  that  when  the  Executive 
or  some  head  of  a  bureau  makes  an  abstract  recommendation  it 
should  be  put  into  some  concrete  form. 

Mr.  Evans.  AVe  are  the  ones  to  do  that  under  the  Constitution. 

Mr.  Nelson.  And  the  President — well,  he  referred  to  me  at  the 
same  time  as  one  of  these  gentlemen  objecting,  which  may  be  largely 
true.  But,  after  all,  these  bills  have  got  to  be  introduced  by  a  Mem- 
ber; and  this  provision  is  simply  for  our  convenience.  It  is  simply 
to  relieve  us  from  so  much  work.  But,  as  I  say,  if  the  committee 
desires  to  strike  out  that  provision  I  have  no  objection. 

Mr.  Pickett.  It  is  a  frequent  practice  for  the  departments,  as 
you  knoAv,  to  put  their  suggestions  into  the  form  of  a  bill ;  but  it  is 
understood  to  be  purely  suggestive. 


CONGRESSIONAL  EEFERENCE   BUREAU.  93 

Mr.  Evans.  The  President  could  hand  you  the  whole  thing  under 
this  provision  all  laid  out,  saying.  "  Gentlemen,  pass  it.''  We  had 
better  not  make  a  law  like  that. 

Mr.  Gardner.  Take,  for  instance,  the  Commissioner  of  Immigra- 
tion. My  impression  is  that  I  have  seen  tentative  drafts  of  laws 
in  some  official  reports  of  his.  Of  course  Ave  all  know  that  laws  are 
very  often  drawn  by  the  departments. 

^Ir.  Evans.  AVe  had  better  not  make  a  law  recognizing  it. 

Mr.  Nelson.  You  will  find  in  a  previous  draft  that  it  was  pro- 
vided that  the  heads  of  departments  might  do  this,  which,  along 
the  lines  you  mention,  was  left  out.  The  only  provision  left  now  is 
that  the  President,  in  a  case  like  this,  may  avail  himself  of  the  expert 
draftsmen. 

Mr.  McKiRDY.  ^Nlr.  Chairman,  the  Aveakness.  I  think,  is  attributable 
to  the  fact  that  this  bill  has  been  modeled  after  one  of  the  State  bills. 

Mr.  Evans.  I  do  not  think  there  is  any  weakness  in  it.  I  am  just 
trA'ing  to  find  all  the  fault  I  can  now.  in  Mr.  Xelson's  presence  and 
your  presence. 

Mr.  Xelson.  That  is  Avhat  I  desire. 

Mr.  McKiRDY.  If  you  will  allow  me  to  make  another  suggestion,  in 
regard  to  section  .5.  the  last  sentence  should  be  made  fuller  and  a 
separate  section  drawn  up.  It  reads  now :  "  In  all  cases  such  instruc- 
tions shall  be  considered  confidential  until  the  bill  shall  have  been 
presented  to  Congress.*'  I  think  it  should  read :  *'  That  all  matters 
brought  before  the  bureau  by  any  person  shall  be  considered  confi- 
dential unless  released  by  the  Member  bringing  it  before  the  bureau. "^ 
It  should  be  in  some  such  terms,     I  think  it  should  be  fuller. 

]Mr.  Evans.  Are  there  any  other  questions  to  be  asked  by  any  of 
the  gentlemen?     Have  you  anybody  else  to  call.  Mr.  Xelson? 

Mr.  Xelson.  Yes. 

Mr.  Gardner.  Well,  now,  just  before  this  gentleman  goes — I  did 
not  hear  his  testimony,  but  I  should  like  to  ask  him  a  question.  I 
take  it  in  connection  with  his  remarks  that  he  is  at  the  head  of  one 
of  these  bureaus. 

Mr.  McKiRDY.  Xo ;    I  am  the  assistant  director,  Mr.  Gardner. 

Mr.  Gardner.  In  Pennsylvania.  I  suppose  that  there  are  two 
branches  to  your  bureau — one  a  bureau  of  reference  and  compilation 
and  the  other  a  bureau  of  bill  drafting? 

Mr.  McKiRDY.  Yes.  sir. 

Mr.  Gardner.  Which  do  you  find  most  useful  ? 

Mr.  McKiRDY.  Drafting.  The  future  of  the  bureau  in  our  State 
lies  along  the  lines  of  bill  drafting.  Mr.  Gardner. 

Mr.  Gardner.  Xow.  is  that  because  the  members  get  lazy  or  is 
it 

]Mr.  McKiRDY.  They  do  not  know  hoAv. 

Mr.  Gardner.  It  seemed  to  me  that  Avith  all  the  hiAvyers  that  we 
have  here  that  the  reference  branch  AAOuld  be  much  the  more  valuable 
feature:  that  the  bill-drafting  end  Avould  probably  result  in  our  fol- 
loAving  the  line  of  least  resistance  and  relieving  ourselves  irom  the 
necessity  of  doing  something  that  Ave  ought  to  do  ourseh'es.  The  ref- 
erence bureau  might  give  to  men  Avho  are  not  lazy  and  AAho  are  really 
determined  upon  legislation  just  the  material  on  which  they  could 
AAork.    It  seems  to  me  that  very  likely  the  greater  use  might  be  made 


94  CONGRESSIONAL.  REFERENCE   BUREAU. 

of  the  drafting  bureau,  just  as  I  have  noticed  that  in  public  libraries 
the  greatest  use  is  made  of  the  most  useless  books.  That  is  following 
the  line  of  least  resistance.  Now,  in  your  opinion,  apart  from  the 
question  of  saving  legislators  from  doing  the  troublesome  drudgery 
with  which  they  are  charged,  which  is  of  greater  value  to  the  State 
as  a  whole,  which  is  of  greater  value  as  to  results,  your  reference 
bureau  or  your  drafting  features  ?  I  am  not  speaking  now  as  to  the 
convenience  of  the  legislators,  but  as  to  the  result  in  the  laws. 

Mr.  McKiRDY.  Mr.  Gardner,  the  one  can  not  work  without  the 
other ;  absolutely,  it  must  be  together.  But  if  you  are  going  to  limit 
me  to  which  of  the  two  is  the  more  important,  then,  of  course,  I  must 
say  the  bill  drafting  is.    I  presume  you  are  a  lawyer. 

Mr.  Gardner.  That  presumption  is  often  incorrectly  made.  I  re- 
but it. 

Mr.  McKiRDY.  Well,  let  me  make  this  remark :  That  statutory  con- 
struction is  a  very,  very  important  element  of  the  law.  It  is  entirely 
analytic.  But  just  as  important  is  the  reverse,  the  synthetic,  the 
building  up;  because  you  have  to  use  exactly  the  same  rules;  you 
have  to  keep  them  in  mind  when  you  build  up  laws,  and  the  average 
man  who  goes  to  Congress  or  the  legislature  has  not  that  ability; 
he  is  not  a  specialist. 

Mr.  Gardner.  It  is  rather  my  observation,  in  regard  to  Congress, 
that  a  Member  becomes  a  specialist  in  the  work  of  his  committees 
more  than  any  general  bill  drafter  or  investigator  could  be.  I  used 
the  illustration  of  the  Committee  on  Immigration  yesterday.  I  have 
noticed  that  we  always  have  had  on  that  committee  some  member 
who  was  a  good  deal  more  familiar  with  legislation  on  the  subject  of 
immigration  than  many  of  the  immigration  officials  themselves.  We 
always  have  some  member  who  knows  the  court  decisions  as  well  as 
the  laws  and  regulations.  I  am  rather  of  the  opinion  that  you  will 
always  find  among  us — unless  you  install  a  legislation  plant — that 
you  will  always  find  among  us  committeemen  much  more  expert  in 
their  particular  lines  than  any  general  drafting  board  could  be. 

Mr.  McKiRDY.  As  a  general  proposition,  Mr.  Gardner,  I  think 
you  are  mistaken;  assuming  that  you  are  making  the  comparison 
with  a  board  of  experts;  that  is,  expert  draftsmen,  I  think  you  are 
mistaken. 

Mr.  Gardner.  I  am  making  the  comparison  between  a  board  of 
general  experts ;  that  is,  of  men  who  belieA'^e  themselves  experts  on  all 
sorts  of  legislation  on  the  one  hand,  and  on  the  otlier  hand  with  a 
less  generally  expert  Congressman  who  is  exceedingly  familiar  with 
immigration  legislation  and  with  the  decisions  of  the  courts  on  that 
class  of  questions. 

Mr.  McKiRDY.  Mr.  Gardner,  let  me  illustrate  this  point:  Sup- 
pose we  had  a  man  who  has  devoted  a  considerable  part  of  his  life- 
time to  synthetic  legislation;  that  is,  synthetic  consideration  of  hiAvs, 
who  knows  the  rules  both  from  an  analytical  and  synthetic  point  of 
view.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  the  best  lawyer  in  Congress  could 
cope  with  him  on  even  terms  in  the  drafting  of  a  bill  ? 

Mr.  Gardner.  Well,  I  think,  for  instance,  that  if  you  take  a 
pretty  expert  man  from  your  force  and  let  him  draft  a  bill  affecting 
the  admission  of  aliens  "into  the  United  States,  he  would  make  a 
number  of  mistakes  that  would  be  picked  out  by  the  committee  at 
once.    If  he  was  like  other  permanent  Government  officials,  he  cer- 


CONGRESSIONAL  REFERENCE   BUREAU.  95 

tainly  would  have  overlooked  this  or  missed  the  point  of  that.  You 
would  find  more  mistakes  in  that  expert's  bill  picked  out  by  the  Com- 
mittee on  Immigration  than  he  could  pick  out  in  the  final  bill  the 
Committee  on  Immigration  would  draft. 

Mr.  McKiRDY.  Well,  but  don't  overlook  this  very  important  point. 
It  is  not  a  question  of  the  substance  of  that  bill.  That  can  be 
gathered  by  some  of  the  clerks  that  would  make  a  brief  for  him. 
But  it  is  putting  that  one  particular  idea  into  such  form  that  it 
will  stand  the  decisions  of  the  courts  in  construing  it.  It  is  not  the 
getting  of  this  information.  The  draftsman  knows  nothing  about 
immigration. 

Mr.  Gardner.  I  was  talking  purely  about  the  decisions  of  the 
courts. 

Mr.  McKiRDY.  Yes;  but  a  brief  will  furnish  him  all  that  infor- 
mation. 

Mr.  Gardner.  Very  imperfectly. 

Mr.  Pickett.  I  think  perhaps  there  is  this  distinction  between  the 
work  at  Harrisburg  and  in  Congress.  I  am  not,  of  course,  familiar 
with  the  history  of  Pennsylvania  in  the  respect  you  are  speaking  of. 
But  ordinarily  in  our  State  members  of  the  legislature  do  not  serve 
many  terms.  In  other  Avords,  their  length  of  service  does  not  com- 
pare with  the  length  of  service  here. 

Mr.  McKiRDY.  That  is  true. 

Mr.  Pickett.  Now,  then,  along  the  line  that  you  are  suggesting, 
take  ihe  Committee  on  Public  Lands.  I  believe  Mr.  Mondell  knows 
more  about  the  public  land  laws  of  this  country,  the  decisions  and 
the  construction  that  has  been  placed  upon  various  acts,  than  anybody 
else  in  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Gardner.  You  can  not  get  at  it  all  by  a  mere  brief.  Every 
brief  leaves  out  something  material. 

Mr.  Pickett.  Very  true.  It  would  almost  require  one  man  to  give 
his  entire  time  to  study  of  the  public-land  laws  to  be  perfectly 
familiar  with  them. 

Mr.  McKiRDY.  Well,  gentlemen,  allow  me  to  say  that,  admitting 
all  that  to  be  absolutely  true,  still  that  gentleman,  Mr.  Mondell,  per- 
haps can  not  draw  a  bill  that  would  in  clear  language  express  just 
exactly  the  idea  that  is  in  his  mind  when  he  draws  it ;  he  should  seek 
the  advice  of  a  man  who  is  skilled  in  applying  language  and  the 
rules  of  statutory  construction  to  lawmaking. 

Mr.  Xelson.  Might  I  interrupt  to  bring  out  this  thought :  With 
this  expert  on  the  technical  form,  an  expert,  like  Mr.  Gardner,  in 
immigration,  or  Mr.  Mondell,  in  land  laws,  would  be  able  to  supple- 
ment that  and  see  whether  he  had  covered  the  special  field  of  infor- 
mation that  a  Member  had  gained  by  long  service. 

Mr.  Pickett.  Of  course,  those  cases  are  not  very  numerous. 

Mr.  McCarthy.  Pardon  me,  in  the  general  debate  here,  but  Mr. 
Mondell,  if  Mr.  Mondell  were  in  that  position  and  were  the  very 
best  sort  of  a  draftsman,  yet,  with  the  numerous  duties  that  he  has 
here,  if  the  bill  happened  to  be  a  bill  of  50  sections,  or  60,  or  80,  a 
tremendous  long  bill,  it  would  be  of  gi'eat  service  to  Mr.  Mondell  to 
have  two  or  three  men  who  had  specialized  for  a  long  while  in  draft- 
ing a  bill  to  prepare  the  drafts  for  him  to  go  over  and  criticize  and 
redraft  over  and  over  again.  It  is  the  redrafting  over  and  over 
again,  under  the  direction  of  a  very  able  man  like  Mr.  Mondell,  which 


96  CONGBESSIONAL  REFERENCE   BUREAU. 

I  think  is  a  very  valuable  thing,  and  which  has  been  so  valuable  in 
England,  where  the  same  thing  exists.  Very  able  men  of  the  type  of 
Gladstone  or  Lloyd-George  and  others  have  employed  these  men, 
who  were  for  years  working  at  that,  and  these  men  then  make  over 
and  over  again,  for  months  sometimes,  these  bills  until  they  get  them 
so  clear  that  they  stand  up  as  monuments. 

Mr.  Gardner.  Well,  is  it  not  true  that  they  have  no  standing  com- 
mittees of  Parliament? 

JNIr.  McCarthy.  No  ;  they  have  what  are  known  as  the  ""  grand 
committees." 

Mr.  Gardner.  These  grand  committees  are  merely  sections  of  the 
House ;  but  they  have  no  standing  committees  where  the  membership 
extends  through  a  session  from  Parliament  to  Parliament. 

Mr.  McCarthy.  Not  to  the  same  extent  as  they  have  here.  But 
you  would  find  that  not  only  a  great  convenience,  but  a  necessity,  in 
that  way.  I  know  from  my  own  experience  that  in  two  or  three 
of  the  great  acts  that  we  have  had  to  do  with  in  Wisconsin — of  course 
they  are  only  small  things  as  compared  with  a  great  many  that  you 
have  here 

Mr.  Pickett.  Of  course,  but  the  members  of  a  committee  do  not 
care  to  go  to  one  of  their  number  for  the  service.  I  am  simply 
citing  that  as  an  illustration.  I  think  it  would  be  necessary  to  have 
exceptionally  well  qualified  men  to  perform  this  function. 

Mr.  Nelson.  AVell,  on  that  point,  Mr.  Pickett,  I  have  a  constituent 
who  has  written  me,  who  desires  to  recover  moneys  that  he  paid  for 
certain  lands  fraudulently  sold  him.  The  Government  has  his 
money.  I  am  at  a  loss  to  know  just  how  to  prepare  that  bill — and 
in  my  ignorance  of  that  particular  field  I  have  gone  to  Mondell,^ 
and  Monclell  now  is  doing  for  me  that  which  I  would  like  to  have  an 
expert  do  for  me. 

Mr.  McKiRDY.  Is  that  all.  Mr.  Chairman? 

Mr.  Evans.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Nelson.  Mr.  Ernast  Bruncken,  who  was  for  five  years  con- 
nected with  the  legislative  reference  bureau  of  California,  is  here, 
and  I  would  like  to  have  him  give  us  some  suggestions  as  to  the 
practicability  of  this. 

The  Chairman.  How  it  works  in  California. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  ERNEST  BRUNCKEN. 

Mr.  Bri'ncken.  How  it  works  in  California ;  yes.  But  if  you  will 
permit  me.  Mr.  Chairman.  I  should  like  to  say  just  a  few  words  in 
connection  with  this  last  thing  that  Avas  broached  by  the  gentleman 
from  Massachusetts.  I  think  it  will  become  plain  to  him  why  we 
advocate  a  bureau  of  this  kind — that  is,  the  bill-drafting  side  of  it — 
if  he  takes  this  into  consideration :  Undoubtedly,  the  members  of 
these  various  committees  are  much  more  expert  on  the  subject-matters 
with  wdiich  they  deal  than  any  member  of  the  reference  bureau,  either 
in  the  bill-drafting  or  in  the  reference  department  proper,  can  ever 
expect  to  be,  because  they  have  so  many  things  to  do,  assuming  even 
that  they  have  the  same  ability  that  the  distinguished  men  in  these 
committees  may  have.  But  have  you  ever  thought  that  a  man  who  is 
very  nnich  interested  in  a  subject  matter  is  the  very  last  one  to  see  the 
many  objections  which  may  arise  in  the  minds  of  others,  including 


CONGRESSIONAL  REFERENCE   BUREAU.  97 

the  attorneys  who  will  attack  those  bills  in  a  court  and,  possibly,  the 
judges?  That  is  human  nature.  Not  only  the  men  themselves  who 
are  on  these  committees  are  deeply  interested  of  necessity  or  they 
would  not  be  the  experts  which  they  are  in  the  matters  which  come 
before  their  committees,  but  also  the  men  who  appear  before  these 
committees  to  advocate  this  bill  or  another  bill.  That  was  what  Mr. 
Gardner  mentioned  yesterday ;  in  some  particular  case  he  referred,  I 
believe,  to  some  lawyer  from  New  York,  who  was  very  expert  in  that 
matter  and  had  all  the  cases  at  his  fingers'  ends  which  had  reference 
thereto.  Undoubtedly  true.  But  all  that  is  not  at  all  the  proper  work 
of  the  man  who  drafts  that  bill  finally.  The  advantage  that  he  has 
is  that  he  is  not,  so  to  speak,  interested  in  that  particular  subject.  He 
is  interested  in  the  question  how  that  particular  subject,  which  has 
been  laid  before  him  by  the  committee,  can  be  put  into  the  form  of 
a  bill  in  which  there  is  the  least  possible  chance  for  an  attorney,  who 
is  hired  to  prove  to  a  court,  if  he  can,  that  that  bill  means  something 
which  it  did  not  mean,  or  that  that  bill  is  unconstitutional,  or  what- 
ever other  objection  he  may  be  able  to  find  to  that  bill — now,  I  have 
lost  the  thread  of  that  sentence ;  at  any  rate,  he  is  interested  in  draft- 
ing a  bill  that  will  prevent  that  attorney  from  gaining  his  point. 

The  Chairman.  You  made  that  point  with  absolute  clearness. 

Mr.  Brungken.  It  is  a  psychological  law  that  you  must  not  be 
interested  in  a  subject  if  you  are  to  see  all  sides  of  it.  Now,  w^hat 
will  this  draftsman  do  ?  If  he  does  work  in  the  way  I  have  done  it 
under  the  difficult  circumstances  in  which  I  was  called  upon  to  do  it 
in  California,  where  I  did  not  have  a  large  staff  of  competent  assist- 
ants, but  had  to  do  most  of  the  work  myself,  and  as  I  often  did  it 
of  necessity,  not  as  perfectly  as  it  should  have  been  done — I  would 
take  the  bill  after  I  had  made  a  rough  draft  of  it,  I  would  take  it 
clause  by  clause  and  try  to  get  the  cases  that  I  could  find  in  which 
the  meaning  of  that  particular  form  of  words,  that  particular  clause, 
or  that  sentence,  and  sometimes  that  particular  word  had  been  called 
into  question,  and  find  out  what  the  courts  decided  upon  it. 

Mr.  Pickett.  Now,  right  there,  will  you  pardon  an  interruption? 
Supposing  that  you  found  two  lines  of  authorities.  For  instance, 
suppose  the  courts  of  New  York  and  Michigan  and  Wisconsin  and 
Kansas  and  Nebraska  had  had  that  question  before  them  and  they 
had  followed  one  rule  of  construction,  whereas  the  courts  of  New 
Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Illinois,  and  some  other  States  had  followed 
another  rule  of  construction.  Now,  would  you  pass  upon  that  when 
you  submitted  the  bill  to  the  gentleman  who  brought  it  to  you,  or 
would  you  submit  also  to  him  the  authorities  so  that  he  could  also 
pass  judgment  upon  the  question? 

Mr.  Brungken.  I  intended  to  come  to  that  very  point  in  a  moment, 
and  I  might  just  as  well  do  it  right  now.  It  is  this :  Whenever  I 
had  the  time  to  do  it — I  have  not  done  this  in  all  of  those  cases 
because  of  the  limited  time — they  called  upon  me  to  draw  an  im- 
portant bill  in  the  evening  and  wanted  it  the  next  day.  Of  course, 
I  had  to  tell  them  I  could  not  do  it;  so  many  of  those  bills  I  had 
to  draw  in  a  hurry,  and  if  this  bill  passes,  no  Member  of  Congress 
will  call  upon  the  bureau  or  allow  them  to  do  it  in  that  hurried 
fashion.  Now,  in  the  few  bills  where  I  had  the  chance  to  do  it. 
when  I  had  my  bill  finished  I  presented  with  it  to  the  member  ask- 

4043.^—12 7 


98  CONGRESSIONAL  REFERENCE   BUREAU. 

ing  for  the  bill — Avell,  you  might  call  it  a  brief  or  a  statement  of  the 
reasons  why  I  had  adopted  a  particular  form  of  words  rather  than 
another,  and  where  there  was  any  doubt  about  it  in  many  cases — in 
some  cases,  I  should  say — I  presented  the  alternative  and  the  reasons. 
I  did  give  him  nw  opinion,  as  you  say.  but  I  also  gave  him  the 
opportunity  to  look  up  the  cases  himself.  Now,  I  say — that  is 
similar  to  what  is  being  done  in  your  department,  Mr.  McKirdy — 
in  that  connection  I  might  call  attention  to  this:  If  this  more  sys- 
tematic manner  of  drawing  bills  is  adopted  by  Congress  they  will 
find  that  they  will  follow  very  largely  the  rule  or  the  system  which 
is  being  followed  in  France  and  Germany,  where  with  every  bill 
introduced  comes  a  pamphlet  called  the  ''  motives  " :  in  other  words, 
comment  or  explanation  of  the  bill,  which  is  not  merely  a  general 
treatment  or  report  such  as,  of  course,  would  be  made  by  any  com- 
mittee reporting  the  bill  to  Congress,  of  the  reasons  for  the  bill  in 
general,  but  which  deals,  paragraph  by  paragraph,  section  by  sec- 
tion, or  clause  by  clause,  with  the  reasons,  just  as  I  stated  just  now, 
why  that  particular  form  of  words  was  adopted  rather  than  another. 
Now,  that  is  distinctly,  as  I  conceive  it,  the  advantage  which  even 
your  expert  committees  will  get  from  the  bill-drafting  features,  sys- 
tematized and  put  into  the  hands  of  a  group  of  experts  such  as  this 
bill  contemplates. 

Mr.  Gardner.  Well,  is  not  the  French  procedure  a  little  bit  differ- 
ent from  that? 

Mr.  Brunckex.  The  difference  is  this,  Mr.  Gardner:  That  in 
France  and  Germany,  as  in  England,  all  the  important  bills  come 
from  the  Government  and  ha^e  been  worked  out  in  the  executive 
departments. 

Mr.  Gardner.  In  France  they  send  projects  of  laws,  do  they  not, 
to  bureaus  which  have  been  selected — the  bureaus  are  drawn  by  lot? 
The  "'motifs"  are  the  equivalent  of  a  bureau  report,  are  they  not? 

Mr.  Bruncken.  Yes ;  that  is  the  same  as  the  report  of  a  committee 
in  a  way.  But  it  seems  as  if — of  course,  I  do  not  know  all  the  details 
of  the  inner  workings  of  the  German  or  French  departments,  but  I 
dare  say  also  the  man  Avho  draws  the  bill  and  submits  it  to  his  chief 
or  the  man  who  works  out  the  motif,  the  committee  report,  as  you 
would  call  it,  makes  this  statement  in  detail  of  his  reasons  for  adopt- 
ing one  form  rather  than  another,  and  Avith  the  modification  neces- 
sarj^  under  our  system  of  legislation,  it  would  naturally  go  directly 
to  the  committee  from  this  draftsman. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Bruncken.  may  I  ask  you  if  the  motifs  sub- 
mitted with  the  bill  when  sent  from  the  bureau  or  department  of 
the  Government  are  not  also  a  plea  for  the  substance  of  the  bill  as 
well  as  the  form? 

Mr.  Bruncken.  They  are  also  that;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  They  are  intended  to  set  forth  the  reasons  why 
the  legislation  should  be  enacted  and  then  suggest  the  form? 

Mr.  Bruncken.  Yes;  but  so  much  as  relates  to  the  form  is  equiva- 
lent to  what  I  have  suggested  the  draftsman  would  submit  to  the 
member  of  a  committee  who  had  engaged  his  services. 

Mr.  Gardner.  But  the  bureau  is  not  a  Government  bureau ;  the 
bureau  is  an  artifical  division  of  the  Chamber  of  Deputies. 

Mr.  Bruncken.  I  beg  your  pardon;  you  are  speaking  of  the  bu- 
reaus. 


CONGRESSIONAL  REFERENCE   BUREAU.  99 

Mr.  Gardner.  A  bill  is  often  practically  a  dummy  when  it  is  in- 
troduced, and  it  goes  to  the  bureau  and  the  bureau  prepares  it  on  the 
lines  that  the  ministry  lays  down. 

Mr.  Brucken.  I  am  more  familiar  Avith  the  German  procedure 
than  with  the  French. 

Mr.  Gardner.  At  the  beginning  of  every  session  in  the  Chamber 
of  Deputies,  they  divide  by  lot,  or  alphabetically — generalh^  by  lot — 
the  w^iole  Chamber  of  Deputies  into  bureaus. 

Mr.  Bruncken.  I  don't  think,  Mr.  Gardner,  that  that  is  the  pro- 
cedure. The  executive  department  draws  up  a  bill.  That  bill,  ac- 
companied by  this  pamphlet  of  motives,  or  the  motif,  is  introduced 
in  Parliament.  It  is  already  finished — ^both  the  motif  and  the  bill ; 
in  many  cases  it  is  first  published,  before  it  is  introduced,  and  sub- 
mitted to  the  criticism  of  the  public,  and  the  newspapers  and  tech- 
nical magazines  are  usually  full  of  discussion  of  these  bills. 

Mr.  Gardner.  As  I  understand  a  bill  is  not  before  the  French 
Chamber  of  Deputies  for  its  readings  until  after  it  has  left  the  bu- 
reau and  gone  into  ''  commission." 

Mr.  Bruncken.  Well,  the  commission  is  a  large  committee  in 
which 

Mr.  Gardner.  I  remember  a  few  years  ago  the  procedure  in  the 
bills  known  as  "  LTmpot  sur  le  Revenu  "  and  "  Le  Rachat  de  I'Ouest." 
I  watched  it  very  carefully,  and  my  impression  is  that  you  rather 
distorted  the  order  in  which  the  thing  happens. 

Mr.  Bruncken.  But  I  am  pretty  certain  that  I  am  right.  I  am 
quite  sure  that  I  am  right  as  to  the  German  procedure. 

Mr.  Gardner.  Very  likely  I  may  be  mistaken. 

Mr.  Bruncken.  At  any  rate,  the  point  which  I  make  is  that  under 
the  different  procedure  in  this  country  it  would  be  the  natural  time 
to  have  these  motifs  as  to  form  submitted  Avhen  the  draftsman  sub- 
mits the  bill. 

Now,  I  wish  to  say  a  few  words  on  some  features  of  this  bill, 
and  particularly  on  the  way  in  which  this  bureau  on  its  reference 
or  compiling  or  collecting  side  will  dovetail,  so  to  speak,  with 
the  present  work  of  the  Library  of  Congress.  Of  course,  the  Li- 
brary of  Congress  at  the  present  time  does  all  it  can  do  to  assist 
in  furnishing  material  and  information  to  the  Members,  as,  I  dare 
say,  all  of  you  gentlemen  know;  at  least  I  judge,  from  what  I  hear 
from  my  associates,  that  they  are  kept  pretty  busy  supplying  such 
information  to  Members.  But  the  Library  of  Congress  has  not  now 
the  means  of  undertaking  the  particular  detailed  work  of  putting 
this — if  I  may  use  the  gentleman's  term — into  tabloid  form.  In  other 
words,  it  can  not  digest  these  things.  I  believe  that  occasionally 
members  of  the  Library  staff  have  undertaken  outside  of  Library 
hours  to  make  translations  of  matters  which  Members  would  like  to 
have  that  had  been  gathered  from  foreign  countries  and  matters  of 
that  kind,  but  officially  the  Library  has  not  been  able  to  undertake 
this.  Now,  the  work  which  the  Library  does  at  the  present  time  in 
the  way  of  bibliography  and  the  like  will  not  only  continue  as  be- 
fore— will  not  by  any  means  be  superseded,  if  t  understand  the 
policy;  and  if  I  am  wrong,  of  course,  the  librarian  will  correct  me — 
will  not  by  any  means  be  superseded,  but  will  rather  have  an  oppor- 
tunity to  enlarge  its  activities,  which  will  be  the  basis  and  founda- 


100  CONGBESSIONALi  REFERENCE   BUREAU. 

tion  of  the  more  detailed  Avork  which  the  reference  department  will 
do  for  Congress  and  the  various  committees. 

Now,  to  come  back  to  the  experience  Avhicli  I  had  in  California. 
There  also  the  connection  between  the  reference  bureau  and  the 
library  is  as  close  as  possible.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  was  established 
without  any  express  authority  or  appropriation  from  the  legislature, 
simply  by  the  trustees  of  the  State  Library,  who  have  a  lump  sum  at 
their  disposal.  Therefore  it  was  possible  to  make  the  entire  staff 
of  the  library  subsidiary  in  part  to  the  work  of  the  legislative  refer- 
ence department,  and  it  would  be  impossible  to  say  just  how  much 
of  the  work  of  the  library  was  directly  legislative  reference  work 
and  how  much  was  general  reference  work  of  which  the  legislature 
availed  itself.  But  the  point  which  I  wish  to  make  in  that  connec- 
tion is  that  it  would  have  been  entirely  impossible  for  myself  and 
my  assistant  to  do  this  work  of  bill  drafting,  if  we  could  have  con- 
fined our  attention  to  that,  if  we  had  not  had  that  library  at  our 
back — not  merely  as  anyone  else  has  a  collection  of  books  of  which 
he  could  avail  himself,  but  as  being  part  of  that  library,  so  that  we 
could  suggest  what  the  library  might  do  in  order  to  help  our  work, 
and  so  that  we  could  call  upon  any  of  the  staff  of  the  library  when 
necessary  to  help  us  in  our  own  work. 

As  to  the  connection  required  between  the  bill-drafting  side  and 
the  reference  side,  I  do  not  go  so  far  as  some  of  my  friends  and  for- 
mer associates  have  gone,  in  saying  that  it  is  absolutely  necessary 
that  the  two  should  be  combined ;  but  I  can  readily  see  how,  without 
a  very  close  connection  of  the  two,  the  work  of  the  draftsman  would 
be  decidedly  hampered,  and  therefore  I  think  it  is  wiser  to  adopt  the 
system  suggested  by  the  present  bill. 

Mr.  Nelson.  Mr.  Chairman,  on  that  point  what  I  would  like  to 
ask  Mr.  Bruncken  is  this,  whether,  if  the  draftman's  work  would  be 
hampered  by  lack  of  information,  would  not  that  information  end 
of  it  become  largely  academic,  without  having  a  thought  of  being 
focused  upon  legislation,  and  would  you  not  be  collecting  material 
there  that  would  be  merely  collected  for  its  own  sake  ? 

The  Chairman.  Raw  material. 

Mr.  Bruncken.  Of  course  I  have  no  experience  of  any  place  where 
that  has  been  done,  but  I  can  very  readily  see  how  the  people  that  were 
doing  the  collecting,  if  they  were  not  in  constant  touch  with  the 
people  who  must  directly  utilize  the  work,  would  very  likely  succumb 
to  that  temptation  without  being  conscious  of  it.  Yes ;  I  can  imagine 
that. 

Mr.  Gardner.  What  is  your  experience  with  the  members  of  the 
California  Legislature  ?  Do  they  only  bring  in  bills  for  you  to  draft 
that  they  can  not  draft  themselves,  or  is  it  the  tendency  of  a  man, 
finding  sombeody  else  to  do  his  work  for  him,  to  shirk  it  ? 

Mr.  Bruncken.  I  do  not  think  that  the  average  member  of  the 
legislature,  any  more  than  the  average  Member  of  Congress,  is  at  all 
disposed  to  shirk  any  duty  which 

Mr.  Gardner.  Leave  us  out,  because  if  we  can  we  always  get  some- 
body else  to  do  things  for  us  rather  than  do  them  ourselves. 

Mr.  Bruncken.  I  do  not  think  that  that  has  been  true  at  all 
among  the  members  of  the  Legislature  of  California,  from  my  obser- 
vation.   But  my  experience  is  this :  Remember  always  that  we  were 


congressionaij  eefeeenoe  bureau.  101 

doing  the  work  under  difficulties,  on  account  of  the  lack  of  funds 
and  the  lack  of  a  large  staff  of  assistants,  so  that  it  would  have  been 
a  physical  impossibility  for  the  two  men  who  could  do  an  V'  bill 
drafting  at  all — myself  and  a  young  assistant,  such  as 'Mr.  Dean 
Lewis  yesterday  described,  just  from  the  law  school^ — to  do  •)riorc 
than  draft  a  very  small  percentage  of  these  bills.  Nfew,  my  experi- 
ence was  this:  That  there  were  a  number  of  important  measures 
which  had  been  before  the  people  for  discussion,  which  everybody 
knew  were  to  come  up  for  passage  that  had  been  drawn  outside. 
Sometimes  they  had  been  drawn  by  the  attorney  general.  Sometimes 
they  had  been  drawn  by  one  of  these  associations  of  public-spirited 
people  like  the  California  Club — the  Commonwealth  Club,  I  mean — 
and  sometimes  they  had  been  drafted,  as  perhaps  you  have  found 
occasionally  to  have  been  done  here — by  a  business  man  who  was 
specially  interested  in  having  the  bill  passed,  and  had  an  interest 
more  special  than  the  rest  of  the  people.  Well,  these  bills  rarely 
came  to  me.  The  men  who  had  drawn  those  bills  had  presumably 
drawn  them  well;  sometimes  I  had  occasion  to  point  out,  when  I 
was  consulted,  that  here  and  there  there  was  something  that  had 
better  be  changed,  something  that  was  obscure,  ambiguous.  But 
there  were  a  large  number  of  members  who  were  precisely  in  this 

Eosition,  that  they  knew  what  they  wanted,  but  they  did  not  know 
ow  to  get  it.  Oi  course,  the  legislatures  are  in  a  somewhat  differ- 
ent position  in  that  regard  from  Congress,  for  the  reason  that  has 
been  stated  here.  The  members  do  not  come  back  very  often,  and 
there  is  always  a  very  large  percentage  of  entirely  new  members,  who 
sometimes  are  quite  helpless  at  first.    They  come  to  me. 

During  the  first  session,  when  the  work  was  new  to  me  and  to 
them,  there  were  comparatively  few  who  came.  The  second  session 
I  had  a  great  many  more,  and  the  third  session  it  was  very  evident 
that  unless  I  had  considerably  more  assistance  than  I  did  have  I 
simply  could  not  keep  up  with  the  demand.  It  became  evident  to 
everybody.  So  that  it  was  very  apparent  that  there  was  a  constant 
demand  for  this  work  from  members  who  were  exceedingly  anxious 
to  do  the  work  well  and  do  it  themselves.  I  remember  cases  where 
private  members  have  sat  with  me  evenings  after  the  legislature 
adjourned,  and  sometimes  until  the  wee  small  hours,  discussing  par- 
ticular bills.  After  I  had  drafted  them  we  went  over  them  together, 
and  very  often  we  redrafted  them,  because  they  had  not  quite  ex- 
pressed the  meaning  or  purpose  which  the  member  had  in  view,  or 
else  because  in  discussing  it  he  had  changed  his  views  as  to  the  details 
of  the  bill. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Bruncken,  was  it  your  experience  that  a  mem- 
ber who  had  applied  to  your  bureau  for  assistance  and  received  it 
was  apt  to  come  back? 

Mr.  Bruncken,  Yes;  well,  that  is  a  personal  question  that  might 
imply  that  my  work  was  not  satisfactory. 

The  Chairman.  Oh,  no. 

Mr.  Bruncken.  But  it  was  decidedly  my  experience.  It  was  es- 
pecially noticeable  in  the  third  session.  You,  of  course,  understand 
that  one-half  of  the  senators  hold  over,  and  the  hold-over  senators, 
with  one  or  two  exceptions — for  which  there  were  special  reasons, 
which  we  understood  well — it  was  especially  the  hold-over  members 


102  CONGRESSIONAL  REFERENCE   BUREAU. 

who  not  only  came  to  me  during  the  session  but  long  before  the  ses- 
sion opened  began  writing  to  me  asking  for  whatever  assistance  I 
could  give  them. 

i'hc  Chairman.  My  question  was  perhaps  rather  awkwardly 
.framed.  Wlikt  I  had  in  mind  was  the  probability  that  any  member 
-finding  that  he  could  get  assistance  and  a  short  cut  to  results,  would 
be  very  apt  to  go  after  that  short  cut  and  those  results,  in  that  way 
following  the  lines  of  least  resistance. 

Mr.  Bruncken.  Why,  I  do  not  know  what  I  would  call  that  the 
line  of  least  resistance. 

The  Chairman.  For  him,  certainly. 

Mr.  Bruncken.  Only  in  the  sense  that  he  presumably  found  a  way 
which  facilitated  his  work. 

The  CHAHniAx.  ^Xe\\,  I  Avould  call  that  the  line  of  least  resistance. 

Mr.  Gardner.  This  gentleman  asked  me  if  I  was  a  lawyer,  and  I 
said,  no;  I  was  not.  Well,  if  we  iiad  had  a  system  like  this  when  I 
was  in  the  State  legislature,  and  all  the  time  since  I  have  been  in 
Congress,  I  would  be  a  good  deal  less  of  a  lawyer  than  I  am  now. 
I  had  a  very  complicated  bill  to  treat  the  other  day,  with  regard  to- 
the  United  States  taking  part  in  the  International  Council  for  the 
Exploration  of  the  Seas,  a  matter  that  interested  me  because  I  repre- 
sent a  fishery  district.  If  I  could  have  put  the  drafting  of  that  bill 
oif  on  some  one  else,  I  should  have  done  so.  It  was  a  great  deal  'netter 
for  the  bill  and  its  chances  of  passage  that  I  should  puzzle  it  out 
myself. 

The  Chairman.  Wouldn't  you  learn  a  few  things  that  are  im- 
portant, but  not  so  much  about  many  things  that  way,  digging  it 
out  yourself? 

Mr.  Gardner.  Yes;  and  that  is  why  I  believe  we  are  all,  sooner 
or  later,  bound  to  be  specialists  here.  That  is  the  way  legislation 
has  got  to  be  carried  on,  more  or  less.  For  instance,  I  make  a 
specialty  of  the  fisheries.  AYhen  I  explain  the  International  Council 
for  the  Exploration  of  the  Seas.  I  knoAv  what  I  aui  talking  about. 
That  is  the  only  way  that  I  can  see  in  which  legislation  can  be 
carried  on.  Smatterers  are  absolutely  useless  except  to  vote  and  to 
make  speeches  for  home  consumption. 

Mr.  Bruncken.  Mr.  Gardner,  may  I  give  you  an  explanation? 
Undoubtedly  you  would  make  an  expert  in  that  particular  work, 
but  would  you  at  the  same  time  become  familiar  with  the  decisions 
which  are  digested  in  the  three  heavy  volumes  of  Sutherland  on 
Statutory  Construction  in  the  same  way  that  this  expert  draftsman 
ought  to  have  become,  or  would  you  be  so  familiar  with  all  the 
decisions — now,  in  this  particular  case  I  suppose  there  would  be 
comparatively  few  decisions — but  could  you  have  an  expert  on  im- 
migration or  fisheries  who  would  be  acquainted  at  the  same  time 
with  the  statute  laws  of  the  United  States  in  the  same  way  that 
a  man  would  be  acquainted  with  them  whose  particular  business  was 
to  be  acquainted  with  them  ?  I  do  not  think  that  is  physically  pos- 
sible. 

Mr.  Gardner.  I  will  admit  at  once  that  there  are  a  great  many 
cases  where  I  can  see  the  usefulness  of  this  bureau.  I  am  very  much 
afraid  that  it  would  be  abused,  and  would  result  in  Members  being 
less  familiar  with  the  matters  on  which  they  are  legislating  than 
they  ought  to  be.     I  am  differentiating  now  between  the  drafting 


CONGRESSIONAL  REFEEENOE   BUREAU.  108 

bureau,  which  seems  to  me  to  be  probably  a  short  cut  to  work  which 
Members  ought  to  do  for  themselves,  and  the  reference  bureau.  In 
many  instances  if  Members  could  have  their  bills  drawn  for  them, 
they  would  know  so  little  about  them  as  to  imperil  their  passage. 

Mr.  Bruncken.  Mr.  Gardner,  if  you  will  allow  me,  I  think  ex- 
perience such  as  I  have  had  in  the  limited  time  that  I  was  in  work  of 
this  kind  contradicts  that.  Now,  for  instance,  to  give  you  an  illus- 
tration :  There  was  a  gentleman,  a  farmer,  not  conversant  with  legis- 
lative matters,  but  a  very  intelligent  man,  who  was  particularly  in- 
terested in  the  game  laws.  He  was  not  a  sportsman,  and  he  was 
rather  inimical  to  the  men  who  were  agitating  stricter  game  hiws, 
and  so  on.  Well.  Avhen  he  came  to  the  legislature  somebody  told  him 
that  if  he  wanted  any  bills  drawn  he  could  come  to  the  State  library. 
He  came.  He  seemed  to  have  a  very  definite  idea  as  to  some  change  he 
wanted  to  make  in  the  existing  game  laws.  He  came  to  me  and 
asked  me  to  draw  a  simple  bill  repealing  a  particular  section  of  the 
penal  code.  Very  well;  I  drew  that  bill  for  him.  Then  he  oame 
again,  and  so  did  most  of  the  other  members,  for  whom  I  drew  bills. 
He  sat  down  with  me  in  my  room  and  he  began  discussing  that  bill. 
He  very  soon  branched  out  into  asking  me  about  other  bills,  and  I 
showed  him  about  other  statutes  or  acts  relating  to  the  game  laws.  I 
showed  him  Avhere  the  statutes  Avere.  Occasionally  there  was  a 
phrase  which  he.  not  being  a  lawyer,  did  not  understand,  and  I  ex- 
plained it  to  him.  It  was  not  very  long  before  he  wanted  to  know 
what  they  Avere  doing  in  other  States,  Avhich  I  explained,  and  by  the 
end  of  that  session  I  do  not  think  there  Avas  much  about  the  game 
laws  that  the  gentleman  did  not  know. 

Mr.  Gardner.  Did  he  have  much  else  to  do? 

Mr.  Bruxcken.  Yes.  He  happened  to  be  in  the  minority,  but  he 
happened  to  be  a  very  energetic  gentleman  and  A'ery  active  in  a  great 
many  ways,  opposing  Avhat  the  majority  Avas  doing.  So  he  certainly 
had  considerable  to  do. 

Mr.  Gardner.  AVell,  I  Avas  trying  to  put  myself  in  that  position. 
In  my  place,  if  this  bill-drafting  plant  had  existed  in  the  Massachu- 
setts State  Legislature  Avhen  I  Avas  there  I  certainly  never  should 
have  learned  to  draft  bills. 

Mr.  Bruncken.  No  ;  that  is,  of  course,  one  of  the  difficulties  of  this 
kind  of  Avork.  I  Avant  to  say  frankly  that  any  man  whom  you  ap- 
point to  the  head  of  this  office  or  any  of  the  more  important  subor- 
dinate positions,  if  he  is  Avorth  the  salary  he  is  paid,  and  if  he  is 
competent  to  do  the  work,  he  Avill  have  opinions  of  his  OAvn,  vicAvs 
of  his  OAvn,  and  it  is  simply  a  question  to  get  a  man  of  sufficient  per- 
sonality to  not  only  have  opinions  and  views,  but  also  be  able  to 
suppress  them  Avhen  it'is  not  the  time  for  him  to  express  them. 

Mr.  Gardner.  That  is  rather  contradictory  to  Avhat  you  said  be- 
fore ;  you  said  that  if  a  man  was  very  much  interested  in  the  subject 
matter  he  Avas  the  Avorst  person  to  draAv  the  form. 

Mr.  Bruncken.  I  did  not  mean  to  say  that  he  Avould  be  inter- 
ested in  all  these  subjects  upon  which  he  Avas  to  draAV  a  bill.  He 
would  certainly  be  a  man  Avho  Avould  have  his  own  vieAvs  on  a  great 
many  things,  and  he  would  often  be  called  upon  to  draAv  bills  Avhich 
he  himself,  if  he  Avere  a  Member  of  Congress,  Avould  oppose.  But 
he  must  be  a  big  enough  man  to  suppress  his  own  A'ieAvs,  his  likes 
and  dislikes. 


104  CONGRESSIONAL,  REFERENCE  BUREAU. 

Mr.  Gardner.  You  do  not  understand  ni}''  criticism.  A  little  while 
ago,  when  you  Avere  speaking  about  committees,  you  said  that  a  man 
very  much  interested  in  the  subject  matter  of  immigration  would  be 
the  very  worst  person  to  draw  a  bill  on  that  subject,  as  he  would 
probably  overlook  all  the  difficulties  that  would  face  the  bill  in  the 
courts  and  all  the  attacks  from  hostile  attorneys.  Now,  if  that  is 
true,  the  man  who  is  personally  interested  in  a  bill — in  this  case  the 
drafting  clerk,  who  is  drafting  a  bill  which  meets  his  ideas — ought 
to  be  the  very  worst  person  to  draw  it.  It  would  be  a  disadvantage 
to  have  a  bill  drawn  by  a  man  in  sympathy  with  it. 

Mr.  Bruncken.  If  I  were  the  head  of  that  bureau  and  had  to  dis- 
tribute the  various  bills  to  the  various  draftsmen  under  me,  I  think 
that  I  should  not  pick  out,  as  a  general  thing,  the  man  to  draft  a  bill 
whom  I  knew  to  be  particularly  interested  in  that  subject. 

Mr.  Gardner.  Most  people  would  rather  go  the  opposite  way. 

Mr.  Bruncken.  On  the  other  hand,  if  I  had  to  direct  one  of  these 
subordinates  in  the  compiling  department,  the  reference  department, 
I  would  pick  out  the  man  who  knew  most  about  that  subject. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Gardner,  do  you  think  it  would  be  humanly 
possible  to  have  a  man  capable  enough  to  do  that  sort  of  work  who 
would  not  have  a  view,  and  a  strong  view  perhaps,  on  any  question 
important  enough  to  become  the  subject  of  general  legislation?  He 
might  not  have  the  ability  to  suppress  his  personal  interest  in  it. 

Mr.  Gardner.  That  is  a  very  rare  quality. 

Mr.  McCarthy.  I  beg  your  pardon.  When  I  was  in  England  the 
draftsmen  were  engaged  in  drawing  the  bill  for  the  veto  of  tKe 
House  of  Lords,  and  some  of  the  draftsmen  there  evidently  hated 
that  bill;  they  hated  it  partly  from  the  difficulty  in  drawing  it,  go- 
ing away  back  into  the  basis  of  English  constitutional  law,  and  they 
hated  the  subject.  They  had  been  there  for  a  long  while  under  the 
Conservative  administration.  But  they  were  doing  their  very  best 
to  carry  it  out.  Men  talking  to  me  privately  acknowledged  that  they 
did  not  like  it,  but  they  were  doing  their  best,  and  did  produce  good 
work. 

Mr.  Gardner.  I  do  not  think  I  should  employ  a  liquor  dealer  to 
enforce  the  jDrohibition  law, 

Mr.  Bruncken.  I  hope,  Mr.  Gardner,  that  the  men  in  this  bureau 
will  not  be  of  the  type  of  a  liquor  dealer;  I  hope  they  will  be  better 
men. 

Mr.  Gardner.  It  comes  to  this:  When  you  employ  a  man  who 
agrees  with  3^ou,  you  get  the  work  of  his  head,  his  heart,  and  his 
hands.  If  he  does  not  agree  with  you,  you  usually  get  the  work  of 
his  hands  only. 

Mr.  Bruncken.  But,  Mr.  Gardner,  you  forget  this,  that  these  meji 
will  make  this  work  their  profession,  their  life  profession.  Thev 
will  have  a  pride  in  that  work,  a  greater  pride  in  doing  that  work 
well  than  in  seeing  any  particular  opinion  of  theirs  put  into  eftVct. 

Mr.  Gardner,  f  think  you  are  probably  right.  I  think  the  chances 
are  that  a  man  could,  with  fair  success,  sink  his  individuality  in  the 
pride  of  his  job. 

]Mr.  Nelson.  I  would  not  like  to  have  Brother  Gardner  draw  a  bill 
for  me  where  he  was  for  it,  because  I  have  found  him  so  exceedingly 
fair  that  he  leans  over  backward. 


CONGBESSIONAIi  REFERENCE   BUREAU.  105 

Mr.  McCarthy.  May  I  suggest  something?  I  nave  had  the  argu- 
ment that  Mr.  Gardner  put  forth  several  times  to  me  in  the  last 
few  years.  I  think  the  best  answer  to  it  is  this :  If  you  had  a  skilled 
clerk  here,  with  all  the  duties  that  you  have,  there  is  no  doubt  that 
that  skilled  clerk  could  help  you  a  good  deal  in  your  work  at  the 
present  time.  Now,  this  man  is,  in  a  way.  a  skilled  clerk;  after  a 
long  experience,  a  highly  skilled  clerk,  and  his  work  therefore  releases 
your  energy  for  many  other  things. 

Mr.  Evans.  The  only  trouble  Avith  Mr.  Gardner  is  that  he  is  afraid 
he  will  grow  lazy  if  this  goes  through. 

Mr.  Pickett.  That  does  not  seem  to  worry  the  other  members  of 
the  committee.  I  was  thinking,  along  the  line  of  your  suggestion, 
how  frequently  you  find  a  very  strong  Eepublican  writing  editorials 
on  a  Democratic  paper  and  a  strong  Democrat  writing  editorials  for 
a  Kepublican  paper.  If  a  person  has  the  true  professional  instinct 
he  can  overcome  his  personal  feelings.  It  would  be  necessary,  it 
seems  to  me,  to  have  men  of  the  highest  professional  instincl  in  this 
bureau. 

The  Chairman.  Are  there  any  further  statements? 

Mr.  Nelson.  Mr.  Berger  was  asked  to  appear  as  representing  a 
third  party,  but  he  had  an  appointment  and  he  could  not  wait  any 
longer.     May  I  file  his  statement? 

Mr.  Evans.  Insert  it  in  the  record. 

STATEMENT  OF  REPRESENTATIVE  VICTOR  L.  BERGER. 

Mr.  Berger.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  every  workshop  needs 
tools,  and  the  tools  of  a  legislative  workshop  must  be  books,  docu- 
ments, and  papers  containing  economic,  political,  and  legislative  data. 
But  very  few  legislators  have  the  leisure  and  opportunity  to  gather 
these  data  as  needed  for  every  question  that  comes  up. 

Legislation  is  very  serious  business  and  should  be  prepared  very 
carefully  as  to  form,  wording,  and  especially  as  to  constitutionality. 

The  advantages  of  a  legislative  reference  library  for  Congress  are 
therefore  obvious.  A  legislative  library  and  its  staff  would  do  all 
that.  They  would  do  more.  They  would  also  put  us  into  instant 
touch  with  all  that  has  been  done  on  a  certain  question  of  legislation 
not  only  in  our  country,  but  in  other  countries,  and  what  is  contem- 
plated by  other  countries  in  the  future. 

A  Congressman  will  be  in  a  position  to  find  out  whether  a  certain 
question  is  within  the  reach  of  Congress  under  the  Constitution  and 
whether  the  people,  through  the  press  and  through  organizations, 
are  demanding  certain  legislation. 

The  legislative  reference  library  would  prepare  us  witli  argu- 
ments to  defend  our  position — or  to  intelligently  attack  bills  with 
which  we  do  not  agree— by  supplying  information  for  either  side. 

Neither  side  would  then  depend  upon  improvisation.  Both  sides 
would  be  well  supplied  with  logical,  legal,  economic,  and  political 
arguments  as  soon  as  they  made  up  their  minds  on  which  side  of  a 
question  they  were. 

We  have  a  legislative  reference  library  in  Wisconsin.  It  has  done 
good  service,  and  the  Socialists,  especially,  are  well  satisfied  with  its 
workings. 


106  CONGRESSIONAL  REFERENCE   BUREAU. 

I  heartily  indorse  the  bill  of  my  colleague  from  Wisconsin  [Mr. 
Nelson]  to  create  such  a  library  for  Congress. 

Mr.  Nelson.  Also  Prof.  Ernst  Freimd,  of  the  University  of  Chi- 
cago Law  School,  who  has  written  on  the  subject  in  magazine  ar- 
ticles, could  not  be  here,  and  has  sent  me  a  short  statement.  May  I 
insert  that  in  the  record  also  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

STATEMENT  OF  PROF.  ERNST  FREUND. 

The  University  of  Chicago  Law  School, 

Chicago,  February  20,  1912. 
Hou.  John  M.  Nelson,  M.  C. 

SiK :  The  value  and  advantages  of  legislative  reference  service  in  connection 
with  public  libraries  are  now  generally  conceded,  and  have  been  sufficiently 
demonstrated  by  practical  experience.  I  therefore  deem  it  unnecessary  to 
speak  generally  in  behalf  of  the  establishment  of  such  a  service  to  aid  con- 
gi'essional  legislation,  and  merely  wish  to  emphasize  some  specific  points. 

The  information  most  immediately  available  for  pending  legislation  is  to  be 
found  in  official  documents — congressional,  departmental,  and  .iudicial.  These 
documents  include  executive  messages,  administrative  and  official  reports, 
.iudicial  decisions,  departmental  papers  and  rulings,  reports  of  special  com- 
missions, and  reports  of  congressional  committees  on  bills,  with  accompanying 
arguments,  briefs,  testimony,  and  other  exhibits. 

This  material  fills  hundreds  of  volumes  every  year,  and  is  gathered  and 
printed  at  great  expense  to  the  Government.  If,  by  a  relatively  slight  ad- 
ditional expense,  the  material  can  be  made  more  serviceable  than  it  is,  such 
expenditure  will  be  in  the  interest  of  true  economy. 

What  is  particularly  needed  at  the  present  time  to  aid  the  work  of  legisla- 
tion is  a  ready  reference  digest  to  practical  observations  and  suggestions  and 
authoritative  decisions  that  bear  upon  particular  items  of  legislative  propo- 
sitions before  Congress. 

The  same  or  similar  administrative,  legal,  or  other  technical  difficulties  and 
problems  constantly  recur  in  ditferent  measures.  We  are  at  present  in  an 
expermental  stage  regarding  legislation  conferring  administrative  powers.  The 
Postmaster  General,  the  Secretary  of  War.  the  Department  of  Agriculture,  the 
Interstate  Commerce  Commission,  exercise  important  quasi  judicial  functions 
which  conunercial  and  property  interests  of  the  greatest  magnitude  are 
affected.  The  decisions  of  these  officials  and  departments  throw  light  upon  the 
operation  of  present  statutes,  and  point  out  defects  and  possibilities  of  im- 
provement that  should  be  heeded  in  future  legislation  upon  the  same  and 
analogous  sub.iects.  The  experience  of  one  department  is  frequently  entirely 
lost  in  dealing  with  a  legislative  proposition  of  a  related  character  but  falling 
within  the  domain  of  another  department. 

The  desideratum  which  the  legislative  reference  bureau  would  be  in  a  posi- 
tion to  meet  is  to  collect  and  tabulate  as  much  as  possible  of  previous  experience 
that  may  be  of  value  in  determining  the  future  course  of  legislation. 

To  illustrate:  One  of  the  most  common  problems  in  legislation  is  whether 
certain  requirements  should  be  made  specific  or  should  be  expressed  in  generic 
terms,  such  as  reasonable,  sufficient,  safe,  etc.  There  are  valuable  observations 
upon  the  administrative  asiiect  of  the  difference  between  generic  and  si)fcific 
requirements  contained  in  the  reports  of  the  factory  inspection  dejiartment  of 
New  York,  which  are  practically  inaccessible  because  none  of  this  material  has 
ever  been  properly  indexed. 

From  administrative  reports  as  well  as  judicial  decisions  important  data  can 
be  obtained  as  to  proper  legislative  principles  in  granting  administrative  powers, 
in  the  disposal  of  franchises  and  privileges,  in  establishing  standards  of  regu- 
lation, in  providing  ways  and  means,  and  in  choosing  the  most  effectual  de\'ices 
securing  publicity,  accountability,  and  compliance  with  statutory  requirements. 
The  information  derived  from  judicial  decisions  alone  is  often  inadequate,  since 
a  power  sustained  by  the  courts  may  be  found  to  be  inexpedient  or  ineffectual 
in  subsequent  administrative  experience,  as  revealed  in  official  reports  and 
rulings;  yet  it  is  not  the  administrative  but  only  the  judicial  material  which 
is  digested  and  indexed,  and  therefore  practically  available,  and  even  that  is  not 


CONGBESSIONAL  REFERENCE   BUREAU.  107 

arranged  or  treated  in  the  manner  best  suited  to  serve  the  purpose  of  the  legis- 
lator or  drafter  of  bills. 

One  of  the  chief  functions  of  a  legislative  reference  bureau  would  be  to  place 
the  administrative  experience  stored  up  in  practically  inaccessible  repositories 
at  the  disposal  of  the  busy  legislator  to  facilitate  his  work  and  make  it  more 
effectual. 

One  of  the  first  tasks  of  the  bureau  would  be  the  construction  of  a  practical 
system  of  topical  analysis  covering  the  greatest  possible  number  of  heads  under 
which  legislative  questions  could  be  indexed. 

The  indexing  of  the  material  might  begin  with  current  publications  and 
gradually  be  extended  to  older  documents  and  reports. 

A  second  task  would  be  the  gradual  building  up  of  a  systematized  and  classi- 
fied collection  of  model  clauses  providing  for  the  greatest  possible  variety  of 
legislative  contingencies,  thereby  establishing  canons  of  draftsmanship  which 
would  add  to  the  certainty  of  legislation,  and  both  aid  judicial  interpretation 
and  make  it  less  conjectural. 

There  are  other  sides  to  legislative  reference  work  besides  the  one  that  I  have 
emphasized.  There  may,  however,  be  a  danger  in  attempting  to  cover  too  large 
a  field,  and  I  believe  the  service  which  I  have  pointed  out  is  one  for  which 
experts  might  be  trained  with  the  greatest  hope  of  success,  and  which  would  be 
most  likely  to  win  the  confidence  of  Congress. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

Ebnst  Frettnd. 

Mr.  Nelsox.  ]SIr.  Chairman,  that  ends  the  list  of  gentlemen,  so 
far  as  I  am  concerned,  whom  I  have  asked  to  come  before  the  com- 
mittee, unless 

Mr.  Putxa:m.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  talked  with  Dr.  McCarthy  on 
this,  and  we  thought  it  might  be  useful  if  the  record  should  show  the 
line  his  bureau  draws  in  the  collection  of  data.  He  spoke  of  going 
abroad  and  making  investigations.  Xow,  it  has  occurred  to  me  that 
when  such  a  bureau  as  this  is  proposed  for  the  Federal  Government 
Avith  the  specification  that  it  shall  gather  and  cla.ssify  "  data  for  or 
bearing  upon  legislation.*'  it  might  be  objected  that  we  have  a  num- 
ber of  bureaus  here  under  the  Federal  Government  already  doing 
that  thing  in  various  field.s — the  Bureau  of  Labor.  Bureau  of  Statis- 
tics, Tarilf  Board,  etc.  Would  it  be  the  function  of  such  a  reference 
bureau  as  this  to  collect  data  upon  wool,  as  the  basis  for  a  bill 
modifying  the  tariff  in  reference  to  wool?  If  so,  what  dimensions 
must  we  have  in  prospect  for  such  a  bureau  ?  Xow.  I  notice  that  in 
Wisconsin  also  there  are  various  boards  and  commissions:  and  for 
the  sake  of  the  record  I  will  name  them:  State  board  of  public  af- 
fairs, tax  commission,  industrial  commission,  railroad  commission, 
dairy  and  food  commission.  State  board  of  agriculture.  State  board 
of  forestry,  board  of  health  and  vital  statistics,  tuberculosis  commis- 
sion— you  spoke  of  some  bills  relating  to  tuberculosis  yesterday — and 
State  board  of  immigration.  Is  there  any  point  at  which  these 
boards  can  draw  the  line  against  investigations  as  more  properly  the 
province  of  one  of  these  standing  commissions? 

The  Chairman,  If  there  is  no  such  point  of  separation,  one  will 
have  to  be  made. 

Mr.  Putnam.  And  if  there  is  any  line  of  separation  Dr.  McCarthy 
must  have  been  obliged  or  called  upon  to  make  investigations  which 
he  thought  without  the  province  of  his  bureau. 

Dr.  McCarthy.  I  am  very  glad  to  answer  that.  Of  course,  the 
work  required  of  the  legislative  bureau  has  been  so  great  in  Wiscon- 
sin that  we  are  very  anxious  not  to  duplicate  the  work  of  any  exist- 
ing department  or  any  existing  committee,  simply  in  order  to  save 


108  CONGRESSIONAL,  EEFEEENCE  BUREAU. 

the  greatest  eflRciency  for  those  things  upon  which  the  legislature 
desires  information  and  upon  which  there  is  no  department  or  com- 
mittee working.  I  mentioned  the  question  of  the  workmen's  compen- 
sation act.  Six  years  ago,  when  the  first  bill  was  introduced,  I  gath- 
ered for  the  committee  as  far  as  I  could  the  workmen's  compensation 
acts  throughout  the  world  and  the  bills  which  have  been  introduced 
upon  that  subject.  That  was  an  entirely  new  subject  at  that  time. 
But  after  that  a  committee  was  formed  to  investigate  the  workmen's 
compensation  act.  That  committee — as  it  usually  happened — called 
upon  my  department  to  help  them.  The  workmen's  compensation 
act  has  gone  through.  It  is  now  under  the  administration  of  the 
industrial  commission  of  Wisconsin.  The  chances  are  that  my  de- 
partment will  not  have  anything  more  to  do  with  it  in  the  future, 
except  that  there  may  be  a  peculiar  schedule  (sic)  of  it  which  might 
come  up  in  the  matter  of  amendment,  in  which  I  might  be  asked  by 
the  bureau  itself  (because  the  bureaus  in  Wisconsin  are  not  such  as 
you  have  here,  and  you  may  have  facilities  that  they  have  not)  to 
gather  information  from  correspondents  whom  I  have  in  many 
places,  because  my  facilities  may  be  greater.  So,  in  the  ordinary 
course  of  events,  if  the  thing  is  so  complicated  that  a  bureau  similar 
to  mine  can  not  begin  to  take  hold  of  it,  why,  of  course,  the  bureau 
can  not  do  it,  and  it  must  not  do  it,  and  it  must  not  complicate  the 
situation,  but  it  must  get  the  information  where  it  can  do  so  and 
where  there  are  no  other  facilities. 

But  it  does  have  to  take  hold  rapidly  in  a  more  or  less  scientific 
manner  as  scientifically  as  possible,  during  the  time  that  we  have 
the  subjects  which  are  coming  up.  There  is  not  any  bureau,  for 
instance,  to  take  up  a  corrupt-practices  act,  so  that  necessarily  we 
have  to  gather  the  corrupt-practices  acts  from  all  over  the  world. 
But  if  there  was  a  committee  appointed  on  the  corrupt-practices 
act  the  chances  are  that  that  committee  would  never  call  upon  us. 
The}^  might  call  upon  us  to  become  a  depository  of  their  material; 
and  after  the  committee  got  good  and  ready  they  might  call  one  of 
my  draftsmen  and  make  8  or  10  drafts  of  that  bill.  That  might  be  the 
end  of  it.  But  the  work  is  so  great  and  there  are  so  many  things 
in  which  we  are  called  upon  that  the  thing  settles  itself.  You  do 
not  want  to  take  up  work  that  you  do  not  have  to  do,  to  duplicate 
the  work  of  other  bureaus. 

The  Chairman.  Doctor,  how  would  you  meet  this  situation?  Are 
you  a  lawyer? 

Dr.  McCarthy.  I  have  never  been  admitted  to  the  bar. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  have  you  any  members  of  your  board  who 
have  had  considerable  experience? 

Dr.  McCarthy.  Oh;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  the  question  of  expediting  court  procedure, 
the  trial  of  causes,  is  one  of  very  great  interest  and  there  seems  to  be 
a  present  demand  for  it. 

Dr.  McCarthy.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  now,  suppose  you,  not  having  been  engaged 
in  the  practice  of  law,  were  called  on  to  supply  information  or  data 
about  that,  or  this  bureau  was,  to  a  legislative  committee ;  how  would 
you  proceed  in  a  case  of  that  kind  ? 

Dr.  McCarthy.  That  case  has  come  up  in  our  State  several  times. 
Once  it  was  met  by  a  committee  from  the  bar  association  meeting 


CONGEESSIONAL  REFEEENOB   BUREAU.  109 

on  that  question.  Once  a  committee  of  judges  met  upon  it,  and 
there  is  now  a  society  organized  for  that  purpose,  with  a  secretary, 
in  the  University  Law  School.  Several  members  have  come  to  me 
and  asked  me  as  to  how  many  cases  Avere  before  the  court,  when  they 
began,  when  they  finished,  or  how  certain  procedure  was  worked  out 
in  other  States  or  other  countries.  The  question  of  the  English  pro- 
cedure has  time  and  again  come  up  there,  and  I  have  simply  dele- 
gated a  man  to  hunt  up  that  English  procedure,  and  he  hunts 
through  the  law  reports  for  criticisms  on  it,  and  how  it  would  work 
out ;  and  we  put  this  mass  of  material  together  so  that  the  committees 
could  use  it. 

Mr.  Pickett.  The  Industrial  Club  of  Chicago  two  or  three  years 
ago  sent  a  commission,  consisting  of  judges  and  prominent  lawyers, 
to  England  to  investigate  the  English  system  of  legal  procedure; 
they  spent  several  weeks  or  months  there,  I  believe. 

Dr.  McCarthy.  Yes,  sir.  Now,  that  report  was  hunted  up  and 
we  collected  a  lot  of  such  material. 

Mr.  Pickett.  They  submitted  a  report.  I  do  not  know  whether 
it  was  printed. 

Dr.  McCarthy.  Such  questions  ought  to  be  submitted  to  an  ex- 
pert committee,  or  an  ex  ofRcia  committee,  to  go  into  it,  and  then  if 
there  was  an  actual  bill  to  be  drawn  afterwards  our  men  could  assist. 
In  fact,  the  judges  and  the  lawyers  do  ask  us.  Nine-tenths  of  the 
bills  are  drafted  in  our  department,  and  drafted  for  men  who  are 
perfectly  capable  of  drafting  them,  but  who  want  to  get  the  benefit 
of  critical  attitude  toward  a  production  drafted  by  others.  If  some- 
thing exists  before  you  to  work  upon  you  often  can  pick  flaws  in  it 
to  greater  advantage  than  if  you  are  working  at  every  little  detail 
yourself.  This  critical  position  is  very  valuable,  especially  if  you 
have  men  right  at  hand  to  do  it  all  over  again  time  and  time  again. 

Mr.  Pickett.  Of  course,  it  is  not  germane  to  this  discussion,  but 
I  should  like  to  know  what  conclusion  you  reached,  as  to  whether  it 
was  the  fault  of  the  law  or  of  the  lawyers — that  is,  on  the  question 
of  delay. 

Dr.  McCarthy.  On  that  particular  case.  Well,  I  do  not  remem- 
ber just  what  came  up  on  that.  In  our  State  we  have  not  got  much 
of  that.  Our  courts  are  up  to  date  and  in  pretty  good  shape.  The 
thing  has  been  changed  in  the  last  few  years,  so  that  they  are  up  to 
date. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  like  asking  you  for  an  opinion  as  to  your  OAvn 
work 

Dr.  McCarthy.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Still,  I  would  like  to  have  you  tell  me  whether 
the  effect  of  your  bill  drafting  has  been  on  the  whole,  and  is  so  ac- 
cepted in  the  public  estimation,  to  clarify  and  simplify  the  laws  so 
that  they  are  more  comprehensible. 

Mr.  Nelson.  Let  me  answer  that.  I  had  rather  answer  it  authori- 
tatively. If  you  will  read  one  of  the  recent  magazines — I  think 
Everybody's — you  will  find  a  decision  by  Judge  Winslow,  a  Demo- 
crat, who  is  chief  justice  of  our  State,  quoted  in  part.  His  decision 
is  highly  praised  for  its  breadth  of  view  and  for  its  largeness  of  vision ; 
and,  by  the  way.  Judge  Winslow  was  one  of  three  men  considered,  I 
think,  by  the  President — I  was  so  told  personally  by  Secretary  Nor- 


110  CONGRESSIONAL.  REFERENOE   BUREAU. 

ion — for  appointment  upon  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States. 
I  want  to  read  his  letter  to  me  right  on  that  point. 

LETTER    FROM    HON.    JOHN    B.    AVINSLOW,    CHIEF    JUSTICE    OF    WISCONSIN. 

Supreme  Court  Chambers, 
Madison,  Wis.,  January  13,  1912. 
Hon.  John  M.  Nelson,  M.  C, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 
My  Dear  Mr.  Nelson  :  Yours  of  January  10,  inclosing  your  bill  to  establish 
a  lesislative  reference  library  at  Washington,  is  received.  I  hope  you  will  be 
able  to  carry  the  measure  through,  for  I  have  no  question  of  its  value.  I  am 
not  able  to  say  that  the  Wisconsin  bureau  has  been  of  direct  service  to  the 
court  in  its  labors.  I  can  confidently  say.  hovs'ever.  that  it  has  been  of  very 
material  assistance  to  the  legislative  branch  of  the  Government  in  the  careful 
drafting  of  bills  and  in  placing  within  reach  of  the  legislators  the  results  of 
legislation  in  other  countries,  as  well  as  the  literature  bearing  thereon.  The 
effect  of  this  work  is,  of  course,  naturally  helpful  to  the  court,  because  it  tends 
to  produce  laws  more  scientifically  drawn,  and  to  prevent  crudities  in  laws. 
Very  truly,  yours, 

Jno.  B.  Winslow. 

Mr.  Bruncken,  May  I  say  something  in  answer  to  this  question,  in 
order  to  avoid  embarrassment  to  Mr.  McCarthy?  My  experience  in 
California  was  this — and  you  remember  that  the  third  sesion  that  I 
was  there,  and  when  the  work  was  most  appreciated,  was  after  Dr. 
McCarthy  had  been  at  work  six  or  eight  years.  My  experience  was 
that  almost  invariably  every  member,  when  he  began  discussing  the 
matter  with  me,  wanted  to  know  first  of  all  what  was  the  latest  Wis- 
consin law  on  the  subject^ — ^invariably. 

l^r.  McCarthy.  I  wanted  to  say  that  we  have  had  just  one  impor- 
tant bill  declared  unconstitutional  during  that  time  I  have  been  there. 
There  Avas  one  bill  knocked  out  by  the  courts  which  was  doubtful 
when  it  went  up ;  everybody  said  so. 

Mr.  Evans.  Do  they  declare  bills  unconstitutional  in  Wisconsin? 

Dr.  McCarthy.  Well,  they  have  recently.  Within  the  last  two 
months  a  law  was  declared  unconstitutional  by  the  State  of  Wiscon- 
sin.   That  is  the  first  thing  of  the  kind  in  Wisconsin  that  I  remember. 

Mr.  Nelson.  Mr.  Chairman,  Mr.  Gardner  indicated  yesterday  that 
he  would  like  to  ask  the  Librarian  of  Congress  a  question.  I  would 
like  to  have  him  do  so  before  I  conclude. 

Mr.  Gardner.  Mr.  Putnam,  Mr.  Griffin  spends  a  great  deal  of  time 
compiling  references  on  all  sorts  of  subjects^Mr.  Griffin  and  Mr. 
Meyer,  who  is  now  chief  bibliographer,  and  his  staff  ? 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  HERBERT  PUTNAM. 

Mr.  Putnam.  Mr.  Meyer  succeeded  Mr.  Griffin  as  chief  bibliog- 
rapher, Mr.  Griffin  having  become  chief  assistant  librarian.  But 
Mr.  Griffin  also  does  reference  work 

Mr.  Gardner.  Well,  from  time  to  time  I  have  had  occasion  to  tele- 
phone over  to  Mr.  Griffin.  For  instance,  I  have  telephoned  over  to 
find  out  about  the  German  cartel  system,  and  very  properly,  I  got 
magazines  and  everything  else,  interleaved,  marked,  and  so  on.  It 
seemed  to  me  a  very  effective  service.  It  is  open  to  all  Members  of 
Congress,  is  it  not? 


CONGRESSIONAL   REFERENCE   BUREAU.  Ill 

Mr.  Putnam.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Gardner.  What  percentage  of  Members  of  Congress  use  it  ? 

Mr.  Putnam.  I  could  not  give  you  the  exact  percentage. 

Mr.  Gardner.  Is  it  10  per  cent? 

Mr.  Putnam.  Mr.  Meyer,  have  you  any  idea  ? 

Mr.  Meyer.  It  is  more  than  that. 

Mr.  Gardner.  You  think  that  40  Members  of  Congress  use  it  dur- 
the  year? 

Mr.  Meyer.  More  than  that.  We  have  on  our  list  Members  who 
ask  us  questions — not  always  about  legislation — something  over  a 
hundred. 

Mr.  Gardner.  Dr.  McCarthy  yesterday,  in  answer  to  a  question  of 
mine,  said  that  131  out  of  the  133  members  of  the  Wisconsin  Legisla- 
ture in  the  last  session  had  been  to  his  bureau,  and  I  wanted  to  get  at 
it  as  a  practical  question — how  extensively  the  facilities  which  we 
have  noAv  are  used. 

Mr.  Putnam.  And  we  should  like  to  give  you  the  answer  in  figures 
if  we  could.  I  can  only  report  a  substantial  use,  which  is  indicated 
in  part  by  the  personal  inquiries,  in  part  by  letters,  in  part  by  the  re- 
quests for  these  printed  lists  on  various  subjects,  which  result  from 
the  collection  of  bibliographical  data.  The  fact,  however,  that  we 
lack  just  what  this  bureau  proposes  prevents  the  use  which  would  be 
general,  in  my  opinion.  The  consummation  of  it  all  is  the  legislation 
proposed — the  drafting  of  a  bill.  Prior  to  that  there  must  be,  not 
merely  an  accumulation  of  a  great  general  collection  in  its  ordinary 
form  of  what  is  here  called  the  data  for  legislation — the  various  in- 
formation that  may  enter  into  the  consideration  of  a  bill— but  such 
a  grouping  and  classification,  such  an  index  of  it,  compilation  of  it, 
that  at  any  one  time  upon  any  one  measure  under  contemplation  it 
may  be  concentrated.  Now,  then,  a  Representative  or  Senator  comes 
to  us.  He  says :  "  I  am  interested  in  such  and  such  a  subject — sugar, 
wool,  the  popular  election  of  Senators — and  I  would  like  some  mate- 
rial on  it." 

Our  service  at  present  is,  in  the  first  place,  hoAvever,  collected  ma- 
terial in  its  primary  form.  It  is  there  scattered  through  1,800,000 
volumes.  Then,  in  answer  to  his  particular  inquiry,  we  will  give 
him  a  list  of  books,  pamphletvS,  periodicals,  references  to  periodicals, 
documents,  and  so  on,  which  may  aid  him.  He  gets  such  a  list,  and 
what  does  he  do  with  it?  It  is  not  " evalued,"  as  the  librarian  would 
say.  There  is  no  attempt  to  interpret  it.  There  is  no  precis  fur- 
nished to  him — what  Mr.  Evans  referred  to  as  a  brief  yesterday; 
there  is  no  argument;  no  syllabus  furnished  him.  We  have  not  the 
physical  ability  to  do  that  kind  of  thing.  We  can  not,  even  without 
diverting  a  cataloguer  or  classifier  from  his  regular  duties,  make  a 
translation ;  and  at  no  one  time  are  we  in  a  situation  when  he  comes 
to_  us,  to  point,  as  Mr.  McCarthy  would  point,  and  say,  "  There  you 
will  find  the  information  which  you  need  in  connection  with  this 
subject,  indexed  and  classified  and  correlated  there." 

Mr.  Gardner.  How  long  would  it  take,  for  instance,  if  I  tele- 
phoned over  to  Mr.  Griffin  and  said  I  wanted  the  best  things  on  both 
sides  of  the  German  cartel  system? 

Mr.  Putnam.  Such  a  list  as  a  bibliographical  list  is  often  com- 
piled  


112  CONGBESSIONAL  EEFERENCE  BUREAU. 

Mr.  Gardner.  If  those  lists  are  two  elaborate  they  are  of  little 
use. 

Mr.  Putnam.  We  quite  often  indicate  in  the  preface  that  agru- 
ments  on  this  side  will  be  found  in  such  and  such  volumes,  and  argu- 
ments on  the  other  side  in  other  volumes.  That  still  leaves  a  great 
deal  of  labor  of  collation  and  concentration  to  be  done  by  the  Senator 
or  Representative  himself. 

Mr.  Gardner.  The  question  in  my  mind  is  whether  he  had  not 
better  do  it.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  if  I  were  to  telephone  or  to  ask 
Mr.  Meyer  now  to  send  me  to-morrow  a  list  of  the  best  references  on 
some  particular  subject,  he  could  make  out  a  pretty  full  statement, 
could  he  not? 

Mr.  Putnam.  I  think  he  would.  That  is  library  business ;  that  is 
bibliographical  work. 

Mr.  Gardner.  Very  well,  I  am  going  to  ask  him  to  give  me  to- 
morrow the  best  references  on  Government  by  Psephism,  and  see 
what  I  get  to-morrow. 

Mr.  Nelson.  And  we  don't  know  whether  it  relates  to  seals  or  sur- 
gery. 

Mr.  Gardner.  I  am  going  to  make  a  speech  on  Government  bjr 
Psephism.    Will  I  get  that  by  to-morrow  in  the  ordinary  course  ? 

Mr.  Putnam.  You  will  get  it.  Mr.  Chairman,  the  amount  of  the- 
service  of  this  kind  that  we  render  now  is  all  that  our  physical 
ability  enables  us  to  render.  But  there  is  a  difference,  not  merely  in 
degree,  but  in  kind,  between  the  work  which  we  are  able  to  do  in' 
these  divisions,  including  the  division  of  bibliography,  the  division 
of  documents,  the  chief  assistant  librarian,  and  so  on,  and  the  work 
of  a  legislative  reference  bureau.  It  is  the  difference  in  the  handling 
of  material,  the  concentration  of  it,  the  attitude  toward  it,  and  the 
expectation  of  a  concrete,  particular  use  to  which  it  is  to  be  applied. 
Now,  our  organization  does  not  suffice  for  that.  There  is  no  other 
question,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Nelson.  Mr.  Meyer,  can  answer  Mr.  Gardner  definitely  now 
on  his  question  as  to  the  number  of  members  who  apply  for  and 
receive  data. 

Mr.  Meyer.  Mr.  Gardner  asked  the  number  of  Members  who  ap- 
plied to  the  library.  I  answer  about  100.  I  counted  it  and  it  was 
exactly  93 ;  he  asked  a  question  of  some  kind  about  these  inquiries 

Mr.  Gardner.  Are  they  all  on  legislative  matters  ? 

Mr.  Meyer.  Not  always  on  legislative  matters.  Now,  in  addition 
to  that  we  answer  telephone  calls  every  day.  I  should  say,  roughly 
speaking,  that  they  average  about  three  or  four  a  day  during  the 
session.  A  little  before  the  session  and  a  little  after  it  we  get  calls, 
too;  but  while  Congress  is  in  recess  we  do  not  get  many  calls,  but 
simply  inquiries  by  letter. 

Mr.  Evans.  May  I  ask  what  proportion  of  that  93  were  on  legis- 
lative matters,  and  how  many  were  on  quotations  to  wind  up 
speeches? 

Mr.  Meyer.  I  have  not  any  statistics  on  that,  covering  the  last 
year;  but  we  are  gathering  them  this  year  to  show  how  much  of  our 
service  was  rendered  to  Congress  and  how  much  to  outsiders.  We 
classify  them  into  three  branches:  A,  B,  and  C,  giving  them  those 
designations  for  convenience. 


CONGRESSIONAL  REFERENCE   BUREAU.  113 

The  CiiAimiAX.  Do  you  consider  Members  who  go  over  and  take 
a  seat  in  the  reading  rooms  and  get  a  book  or  paper  in  making  that 
estimate? 

Mr.  Meyer.  Xo,  not  at  all ;  I  have  nothing  at  all  to  do  with  those 
Members. 

Mr.  Evans.  I  have  gone  over  for  that  very  purpose  and  have  sent 
for  books  on  legislative  matters;  it  is  the  only  way  I  have  ever  c(m- 
sulted  the  library. 

Mr.  PuTXAM.  Mr.  Chairman,  of  course  the  records  make  clear 
that  Ave  have  been  applying  this  question  to  the  kind  of  inquiry 
wliich  comes  up  to  the  bibliographical  division.  The  use  of  the 
Representatives"  reading  room  and  the  issue  of  books  directly  there, 
or  to  the  Capitol,  or  to  the  House  Office  Building,  is  an  entirely  dif- 
ferent matter,  and  the  majority  of  Congress  are  using  the  library. 
The  majority  of  Representatives  are  noted  as  using  the  Representa- 
tives' reading  room. 

Mr.  Xelson.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  just  Avant  to  say  that  I  do  not  care 
to  detain  the  committee  any  longer.  You  have  been  very  courteous 
and  have  given  up  your  valuable  time;  you  have  spent  tAvo  days  for 
these  hearings  at  my  request,  and  I  am  A'ery  grateful  to  these  gen- 
tlemen Avho  have  come  so  far,  having  the  subject  matter  at  heart,  to 
assist  us  with  their  information. 

I  intended  to  submit  to  3^ou,  or  to  bring  here  men  of  science  in 
university  work,  Avho  had  studied  this  matter  scientifically;  legisla- 
tive reference  men  Avho  had  had  years  of  practical  operation  in  this 
Avork ;  leaders  from  both  parties  in  the  House  who  kncAv  of  the  need 
of  an  agency  of  this  kind  to  assist  us  and  Avho  would  be  representa- 
tive: also  heads  of  bureaus  of  the  Government  who  saAv  the  need  of 
a  clearing  house  Avhich  would  make  available  for  our  immediate 
needs  the  vast  stores  of  information  that  these  bureaus  contain ;  also 
the  Librarian  of  Congress,  who  could  tell  you  how  this  Avould  sup- 
plement the  Avork  of  the  library  by  fcx-using  the  A'ast  resources  of  that 
institution  upon  the  questions  before  us;  and  in  order  that  a'ou  might 
have  the  Avorld  vieAvpoint,  I  invited  the  author  of  The  American 
Commonwealth  to  be  present;  he  not  only  knew  of  our  needs,  but 
Avas  sympathetic  with  any  moA^ement  of  this  kind,  to  lift  legislation 
to  a  higher  level,  and  in  his  experience  as  a  parliamentarian  and  min- 
ister Mr.  Bryce  Avas  familiar  Avith  the  exceeding  helpfulness  of  such 
an  agency  for  the  improvement  of  the  substance  and  form  of  stat- 
utes in  Great  Britain.  Now,  it  seems  to  me  that  there  are  three 
things  at  least  that  Ave  are  agreed  upon  from  the  trend  of  the  discus- 
sion here. 

First,  the  desirability  of  an  institution  of  this  kind  that  will  re- 
lieve Members  of  Congress  of  the  clerical  drudgery  of  collecting 
data  and  information  in  the  preparation  of  laAAs,  so  that  we  may 
concentrate  on  principles  and  policies.  Second,  the  necessity  of 
improving  the  form  of  legislation  through  skilled  men  trained  in  the 
technique  of  laAv  forms,  who  will  act  for  us  in  the  A\'ay  of  the  form 
of  legislation,  as  we  now  haA'e  parliamentary  experts  assist  us  in 
parliamentary  procedure;  and.  third,  it  appears  to  me  clear  that  Ave 
must  haA'e  these  united :  that  the  substance  is  conditioned  on  the  form, 
and  the  form  on  the  substance,  and  to  separate  them  Avould  be  a 
fundamental  and  fatal  defect. 
40435—12 8 


114  CONGRESSIONAL  REFERENCE   BUREAU. 

Now,  I  realize  furthermore  that  primarily  this  institution  will  be 
of  service  to  party  leaders  and  committees.  But  T  plead  for  the  indi- 
vidual Member  of  Congress.  He  needs  information  and  data  upon 
legislation  upon  which  he  is  to  vote;  upon  bills  that  he  intends  to 
advocate  or  speeches  or  remarks  that  he  intends  to  submit  upon 
legislation  pending;  and  I  trust  that  this  committee  will  not  urge 
upon  Congress  a  one-sided  bill,  one  that  will  simply  look  after  a 
committee  or  a  party  leader,  but  that  Ave  will  have  an  institution  here 
that  will  look  to  the  collective  efficiency,  and  Avill  enlarge  the  indi- 
vidual capacity  of  every  Member  of  the  House  for  legislative  service. 
In  other  words,  that  we  may  have  a  legislative  institution  here  that 
will  help  us  as  our  collective  secretary  and  our  parliamentary 
counsel. 

The  Chairman.  Gentlemen,  we  are  glad  to  have  heard  you,  and 
are  obliged  to  you  for  your  trouble. 

Thereupon,  at  2.15  o'clock  p.  m.,  the  committee  adjourned. 


--SelPj^^E  OP  25  CENTS 

WIUU  INCREASE  TO  SO  ce^?,''!.-  """^  PENALTY 
DAY  AND  TO  $I.ol  on  t„.  """^  ''°"''^« 
OVERDUE.  ^"^    ^"E    SEVENTH    DAY 


I 


wmJl^^^^^^  LIBRARIES 


C057MaM0fll 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

This  book  is  due  oa  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


ijdC^d  y/ii(c7 


LD  21-40m-10,'65 
(F7763sl0)476 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


